WORKING PAPER
Volume 2010 Number347
So What Difference Does it Make?
Mapping the Outcomes of
Citizen Engagement
John Gaventa and Gregory Barrett
October 2010
About IDS
The Institute of Development Studies is one of the world's leading charities for research, teaching and
communications on international development. Founded in 1966, the Institute enjoys an international
reputation based on the quality of its work and the rigour with which it applies academic skills to real
world challenges. Its purpose is to understand and explain the world, and to try to change it – to
influence as well as to inform.
IDS hosts five dynamic research programmes, five popular postgraduate courses, and a family of
world-class web-based knowledge services. These three spheres are integrated in a unique combination
– as a development knowledge hub, IDS is connected into and is a convenor of networks throughout
the world.
The Institute is home to approximately 80 researchers, 50 knowledge services staff, 50 support staff and
about 150 students at any one time. But the IDS community extends far beyond, encompassing an
extensive network of partners, former staff and students across the development community
worldwide.
For further information on IDS publications and for a free catalogue, contact:
IDS Communication Unit
Institute of Development Studies
at the University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9RE, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1273 915637
Fax: +44 (0) 1273 621202
E-mail: bookshop@ids.ac.uk
Web: www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop
IDS is a charitable company, limited by guarantee and registered in England (No. 877338).
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
So What Difference Does it Make?
Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen
Engagement
John Gaventa and Gregory Barrett
October 2010
Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex Brighton BN1 9RE UK
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
01
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
So What Difference Does it Make? Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement
John Gaventa and Gregory Barrett
IDS Working Paper 347
First published by the Institute of Development Studies in October 2010
© Institute of Development Studies 2010
ISSN: 2040-0209 ISBN: 978 1 85864 951 X
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
All rights reserved. Reproduction, copy, transmission, or translation of any part of this publication may be made
only under the following conditions:
• with the prior permission of the publisher; or
• with a licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd., 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE, UK,
or from another national licensing agency; or
• under the terms set out below.
This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee for teaching or non-profit
purposes, but not for resale. Formal permission is required for all such uses, but normally will be granted
immediately. For copying in any other circumstances, or for re-use in other publications, or for translation or
adaptation, prior written permission must be obtained from the publisher and a fee may be payable.
Available from:
Communication Unit
Institute of Development Studies
at the University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9RE, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1273 915637
Fax: +44 (0) 1273 621202
E-mail: bookshop@ids.ac.uk
Web: www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop
Typeset by Warwick Printing, Leamington Spa, UK. Printed by Nexus, Brighton, UK.
IDS is a charitable company limited by guarantee and registered in England (No. 877338).
02
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
03
So What Difference Does it Make? Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen
Engagement
John Gaventa and Gregory Barrett
Summary
Over the last two decades, the idea that citizen engagement and participation can
contribute to improved governance and development outcomes has been
mainstreamed in development policy and discourse. Yet despite the normative
beliefs that underpin this approach, the impact of participation on improved
democratic and developmental outcomes has proved difficult to assess. Where
previous research studies have attempted to demonstrate impact, they tend to be
limited to single interventions, a small number of country contexts or by various
conceptual and methodological constraints.
In this paper, we report on a meta-case study analysis of a ten-year research
programme on citizenship, participation and accountability which analysed a nonrandomised
sample of 100 research studies of four types of citizen engagement
in 20 countries. By mapping the observable effects of citizen participation
through a close reading of these studies, we created a typology of four
democratic and developmental outcomes, including (a) the construction of
citizenship, (b) the strengthening of practices of participation, (c) the strengthening
of responsive and accountable states, and (d) the development of inclusive and
cohesive societies.
We find that citizen participation produces positive effects across these outcome
types, though in each category there are also examples of negative outcomes of
citizen participation. We also find that these outcomes vary according to the type
of citizen engagement and to political context. These findings have important
implications for the design of and support for participatory programmes meant to
improve state responsiveness and effectiveness.
Keywords: citizen engagement; participation; governance; accountability;
democracy; responsive states; social inclusion.
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
04
John Gaventa is a Reseach Professor and Fellow in the Participation, Power and
Social Change team at the Institute of Development Studies, and has written
widely on issues of participation, power and citizenship. He is also currently
Director of the Development Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and
Accountability.
Gregory Barrett is a social science researcher who has worked on a variety of
research projects on inequality, social policy and social accountability, including
most recently the Development Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and
Accountability. He holds an MSc from the London School of Economics and
Political Science.
Contents
Summary, keywords 3
Author notes 4
Acknowledgements 7
Acronyms 7
1 Introduction 9
2 The contribution of citizen engagement to development and democratic
governance – an overview of the evidence 12
3 The contribution of the Citizenship DRC to the debate 16
4 Methodology and research design 19
5 Findings 25
5.1 Citizen engagement and the construction of citizenship 27
5.1.1 Gaining knowledge and awareness 28
5.1.2 Greater sense of empowerment and agency 30
5.2 Citizen engagement and the practice of participation 32
5.2.1 From awareness to action 33
5.2.2 The deepening of networks and alliances 34
5.3 Citizen engagement and building responsive states 35
5.3.1 Access to development resources 36
5.3.2 The achievement of rights 39
5.3.3 State accountability 41
5.4 Citizen engagement and inclusive and cohesive societies:
towards greater inclusion 44
6 The impact of strategy and context 47
6.1 How does engagement strategy effect outcome? 47
6.2 How does political context effect outcome? 52
7 Implications and next steps 56
Annexe 1 Case studies included in the sample 61
References (in addition to case studies from the sample in Annexe 1) 69
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
05
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
06
Figures
Figure 5.1 Distribution of positive and negative within outcome categories 26
Figure 6.1 Distribution of types of citizen engagement across case studies 48
Figure 6.2 Distribution of positive and negative outcomes across country
types 53
Tables
Table 4.1 Number of cases, by country 23
Table 5.1 Outcomes of citizen engagement 25
Table 5.2 Distribution of positive and negative outcomes by category 26
Table 6.1 Distribution of types of citizen engagement across categories of
positive outcomes 49
Table 6.2 Distribution of positive outcomes across types of citizen
engagement 50
Table 6.3 Distribution of positive and negative outcomes across type of
citizen engagement 51
Table 6.4 Distribution of types of citizen engagement across positive and
negative outcomes 51
Table 6.5 Distribution of positive outcomes across country type 54
Table 6.6 Distribution of types of citizen engagement across country tiers 55
Table 6.7 Distribution of types of citizen engagement across positive
outcome types, Tier Three countries 55
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
07
Acknowledgements
A version of this paper was originally prepared for the Synthesis Conference of the
Development Research Centre for Citizenship, Participation and Accountability
(Citizenship DRC) at the University of Sussex, UK, in November 2009, but it has been
revised and expanded significantly since. Our thanks to those who have offered
comments on the paper, including Max Everest Phillips, Ben Cousins, Rosalind
Eyben, Naomi Hossain, Henry Lucas and Jeremy Holland, as well as other colleagues
in the Citizenship DRC programme. Our thanks also to Karen Brock for editing this
version of the paper.
Acronyms
DRC Development Research Centre
EPPI Evidence for Policy and Practice Information
IAASTD International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science
and Technology for Development
KDP Kecamatan Development Project
MDG Millenium Development Goal
NK Nijera Kori
SJC Social Justice Committee
TAC Treatment Action Campaign
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
08
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
09
1 Introduction
As you know, the idea that good governance cannot be achieved without
the active involvement of citizens and civil society actors has gained
growing consensus in recent years. Many donors and NGOs now support
“participatory governance”, “social accountability” or “demand for good
governance” programmes aimed at promoting the active involvement of
citizens/CSOs in public decision-making and holding government
accountable [...] I’m currently involved in a research project to gather
evidence of the results and/or impact of such initiatives. If you have been
involved in, or can recommend, any studies that document the results or
impacts of such initiatives, I would be very grateful to know of them.
Evidence of development-related, governance-related or empowermentrelated
results or impacts are all of interest.
(E-mail to author from World Bank consultant, August 2009)
We would like to do more to support this approach, but we don’t know
how to measure it, and if it can’t show its results, we can’t get it through
the system.
(Response of bilateral agency staff member to a presentation on how citizen engagement
can strengthen democracy, November 2008)
Our number one challenge is to demonstrate what difference citizen
engagement makes.
(Representative of large donor agency in a multi-donor meeting on voice and accountability,
June 2008)
As these quotes illustrate, understanding what difference citizen participation, voice
and engagement make to development and to more accountable and responsive
governance has become a key preoccupation in the development field. It is almost
a decade since participation moved towards the mainstream in development
practice (World Bank 1994), and the strategy of strengthening the demand side has
become attractive in good governance strategies (UN 2008). Despite this, a large
gap still exists between normative positions promoting citizen engagement and
the empirical evidence and understanding of what difference citizen engagement
makes (or not) to achieving the stated goals. As a recent review by the Overseas
Development Institute (O’Neill et al. 2007: 43) reports, ‘the collective knowledge of
donors [on voice and accountability initiatives] has much more to say about the
types of approach they should be adopting than about the effectiveness of current
models’, particularly in terms of broader development outcomes.
The pressures to bridge this gap are strong and growing, driven not only by the
results focus of aid agencies, but also by others concerned with the difference
between the norms and the realities of citizen engagement. In countries across
the world affected by the spread of democratisation, key problems of poverty and
inequality remain, prompting some to ask when they will get the ‘democracy
dividends’ from their new-found opportunities for political participation. Social
change activists and practitioners taking a participatory approach also need to
know what difference their work makes over the long term, and how to win and
then sustain the gains from their approach. After several decades of experience in
promoting citizen engagement – in development projects and governance
processes, through consultations, community associations and social movements
– it is important both to ask the question ‘so what difference does it make?’ and to
be able to get some authoritative and informative answers.
Over the past decade, the Development Research Centre on Citizenship,
Participation and Accountability (henceforth, Citizenship DRC) has produced 100
in-depth qualitative case studies across twenty counties which explore various
strategies, dynamics and outcomes of citizen engagement.1 A core proposition
which underpins the Citizenship DRC’s investigations, often articulated by its
Director, is that ‘participatory, rights-bearing forms of citizenship will contribute to
more responsive and accountable forms of governance, which in turn will be
pro-poor’. Almost 10 years and 100 case studies later, this body of work offers a
unique opportunity to explore the evidence that might support or disclaim this
proposition.
But the task is not so easy. A quick search of the literature opens a morass of
further questions, rather than generating easy answers. What is the theory of
change and how does that affect the outcomes one is searching for? What are
appropriate indicators, how can we gain attribution, and how can we measure
success across contexts? And, consistent with the persistent question of
assessing impact in the evaluation field: whose reality counts in deciding which
changes are most meaningful?
There are many ways in which the question of what difference citizen engagement
makes could be approached. One would be to elaborate a normative theory and
then test the extent to which it holds true on the ground through pre-established
frameworks or indicators of what constitutes success. To do so, however, would
be to go against the grain of the research process used by our network of
researchers, who have mostly used empirically grounded case study research to
interrogate core questions, and to generate findings ‘upwards’ from these, rather
than to test tightly pre-defined hypotheses. While the Citizenship DRC has
explored numerous themes related to how citizens participate and mobilise to
claim rights, in few of our studies was there an explicit focus on measurable
outcomes of such participation. Rather, our approach was shaped by
understanding contexts, dynamics and meanings of engagement.
However, embedded throughout our repertoire of case studies and working
groups are nuggets of insight about what outcomes did or did not occur, in more
than 20 countries, from the local to the national to the global level, in a range of
sectors, and through a variety of channels of engagement. In this paper, we argue
that further analysis of this large-scale qualitative database will shed light on the
range of outcomes produced by citizen engagement as well as where and why
divergences in outcomes might occur in different settings. Gleaning these insights
through an inductive, meta-case study analysis approach, we argue, brings an
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
10
1 Funded by the Department for International Development (DfID), the Citizenship DRC is a ten-year
research programme, based at the Institute of Development Studies with key institutional partners in
seven countries. Further information may be found at www.drc-citizenship.org.
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
11
2 Due to the nature of our data set and data programme, we do not test for statistical significance. Thus,
while we can suggest propositions and findings from our analysis, we are cautious about the extent to
which they can be generalised without further study.
important and rare cross-country perspective to the thorny debates on what
difference engagement makes.
We will first present a brief review of what the literature tells us about the state of
knowledge on the outcomes of citizen engagement, and some of the challenges
posed by researching the impact of participatory programmes. In Section Three,
we give an overview of the Citizenship DRC and its research programme,
explaining the research orientation of each of our working groups and examining
some of the normative expectations which we brought into each stage of the
research, which might have an impact on the direction of the evidence.
Section Four outlines how, using a meta-case study approach, we created a
sample of 100 case studies from previously published Citizenship DRC studies
from 20 countries, and extracted from these over 800 outcomes of citizen
engagement under study. In Section Five, we present our categorisation of these
outcomes, based on the findings from the sample. Taking this approach has given
us a map of significant outcomes of citizen engagement in four broad areas:
the construction of citizenship
the strengthening of practices of participation
the strengthening of responsive and accountable states
the development of inclusive and cohesive societies.
While we find the contribution of citizen engagement to these outcomes to be
largely positive in our sample, we also elaborate a typology of negative outcomes,
which largely mirror the positive forms.
After describing our findings related to each of these outcomes, we continue in
Section Six to analyse further how they might vary according to contextual factors,
especially according to what strategy of citizen engagement has produced the
outcome, and the nature of the political regime in which it occurs. The results from
this analysis challenge a number of assumptions about how and where change
occurs. In Section Seven we summarise these core findings and point to implications
for current debates on the contributions of citizen engagement to achieving
development goals, as well as to building responsive and democratic states.
While our approach will not offer findings that are generalisable across all settings
(even if we think such was possible or desirable),2 we argue that this systematic
analysis of case studies will make an important contribution to the debate by
going beyond one-off, local-level experiments or evaluations of specific donor
initiatives to look at the full spectrum of opportunities for citizen participation in a
variety of contexts. It will also counter the absence of frameworks or typologies
which help to link models and theories of change with deep understanding of local
contexts (O’Neill et al. 2007: 44).
G
G
G
G
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
12
We also hope that this study will move the debate on citizen engagement beyond
the question of ‘does it make a difference?’ Our data responds with a resounding
‘yes’. We argue in the conclusion that the key questions now become: ‘what is the
quality and direction of the differences made?’ and ‘how and under what
conditions are they attained?’
2 The contribution of citizen
engagement to development and
democratic governance – an
overview of the evidence
Reviewing donor logic on the link between voice and accountability and
development goals, Rocha Menocal and Sharma outline the core assumption that
‘increasing citizens’ voice will make public institutions more responsive to citizens’
needs and demands and therefore more accountable for their actions’ (2008: ix).
This combination of voice and accountability will in turn contribute directly to
‘(i) changes in terms of broader development outcomes, including meta-goals
such as poverty reduction, human development and the achievement of the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) more generally; and (ii) changes at a
more intermediate level involving changes in policy, practice, behaviours and
power relations’ (2008: 33). While they go on to critique these assumptions, and
to show how local realities are often far more complex, they argue that this
overall theory of change on the contribution of citizen engagement to development
outcomes continues to guide donor interventions.
Somewhat similar assumptions are also made about how citizen engagement can
contribute directly to governance, rights and democratic outcomes. The UN
Report People Matter: Civic Engagement in Public Governance argues that
‘engagement is regarded as an important governance norm that can strengthen
the decision-making arrangements of the state and produce outcomes that favour
the poor and the disadvantaged. In this light, engagement emerges as conducive,
if not critical, to attaining the MDGs’ (2008: 23). The report goes on to outline over
a dozen areas in which UN resolutions and declarations have promoted the
importance of civic engagement and participatory processes for achieving both
‘rights’ and ‘development management’. For instance, the Economic and Social
Council, in its resolution 2006/99, articulated the importance of civic participation
when it encouraged ‘Member States to strengthen citizen trust in government by
fostering public citizen participation in key processes of public policy development,
public service delivery and public accountability.’
While the theory of change reflected in the donor and multilateral expectations
may be critiqued, academic studies explore similar arguments. In a paper that
emerged from the Citizenship DRC work, Coelho and Favareto (2008: 2) argue
that while there is a ‘lack of evidence about the causal nexuses capable of
supporting the link between participation and development’, one can make a
logical argument for the link. They develop the ‘institutionalist’ and ‘social
mobilisation’ arguments for what this logic might be, arguing that ‘the inclusion of
a broad spectrum of citizens with a more intense circulation of information, greater
transparency and legitimacy in the political process and an intensification of public
debate […] should contribute towards increasing certain forms of coordination,
thereby facilitating development’. For the institutionalist, this is achieved through
institutional design; for mobilisation theorists, it occurs as a result of processes
‘that empower the less favoured actors’ (2008: 18–19).
Other studies, cutting across the development and governance spectra, give a
range of expectations of what citizen engagement can hope to achieve. Examining
five examples of well-designed ‘mini-publics’ or fora through which citizens
engage, Fung (2003) argues that we should be able to see improved quantity and
quality of participation, which might overcome biases of elite domination; better
informed officials and citizens with stronger dispositions and skills; more
institutional accountability, with greater ‘justice of policy’ and effectiveness; and
increased popular mobilisation in other spheres outside the mini-publics. Arguing
similarly, Manor examines a series of reforms designed to make governance more
inclusive and participatory at the grassroots level, arguing that ‘when reforms
inspire disadvantaged groups to engage in public affairs, their confidence, skills,
connections, organisational strength – and thus their capacity to influence their
own destinies – grow’. Moreover, this offers a win-win situation for governments
and political leaders who need the engagement of citizens to fulfil their goals: ‘The
constructive potential of governments increases when the energies of civil society
organisations and ordinary people are drawn into the development process. And
(not incidentally in the eyes of political leaders) reforms also enhance governments’
legitimacy and popularity – no mean achievement in this era of fiscal constraints’
(2004: 27).
Examining participation in the area of budgeting and public expenditures,
Robinson finds that ‘one set of outcomes is associated with the intrinsic benefits
of participation, in terms of democratic citizenship and improved accountability
and transparency. Another set of outcomes are related to the material benefits of
participation for low income groups, reflected in a shift in policy and priorities
towards expenditures that directly benefit the poor’ (2004: 8). However, he
acknowledges that most of the evidence available refers to the former, and not
the latter.
In earlier work, Gaventa examines outcomes of participation for social justice,
which were ‘assumed to be both about gaining greater equity and shared power in
the local political process, as well as about gaining greater equity in terms of
service delivery, and the improvement of material conditions that affect poor
groups’ (Gaventa 2006: 8). Drawing upon work by Goetz and Gaventa (2001), this
approach argues that one can assess outcomes by looking at those related to
access, presence and influence, across both development and democracy building
spheres. Influence can then be linked to both:
Democracy-building outcomes, [which] focus on whether the conditions,
skills or policies are created which open new spaces for engagement,
change power relations, or create new initiatives for strengthening more
inclusive governance in the future.
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
13
G
Pro-poor developmental outcomes, [which] focus less on political
outcomes and more on changes in material conditions amongst affected
poor and excluded populations, including a redistribution of priorities or
resources to meet their needs.
These two frames obviously are linked. Achievement of greater access and
presence of previously excluded social groups over time can become a
democracy-building outcome. Similarly, social justice developmental
outcomes may reflect the increased influence that these groups obtain.
(Gaventa 2006: 9)
The list of desirable outcomes associated with the contribution of citizen
engagement to development and democratic governance, and the various
frameworks for tracking them, could continue. However, little actual evidence of
outcomes exists. Where it does, it fails to establish causal links, or is often
contradictory, unsystematic or lacking the views of those directly affected. These
themes come up repeatedly in those studies that have attempted to evaluate the
strength of the evidence that citizen engagement makes a difference:
Despite the fact that the World Bank has now spent over US$7 billion on
community-based and -driven development projects, Mansuri and Rao argue
that ‘not a single study establishes a causal relationship between any
outcome and participatory elements of a community-based development
project’ (2004: 1).
In an evaluation of over 90 donor programmes, Rocha Menocal and Sharma
find that given various limitations in their sample and the data available, ‘it is
not surprising that all country case studies have been unable to establish a
direct causal link between citizen voice and accountability interventions and
broader development outcomes’ (2008: 34), though they can see contributions
to some of the intermediate outcomes which were identified. In general, they
argue, the donor assumptions and expectations on what participation can
offer to broad goals like the MDGs are too great, and ‘there needs to be more
effort to establish a middle ground of identifying attitude and behaviour
indicators which are a direct outcome of citizen voice and accountability
activities’ (2008: 34).
In their review for USAID, Brinkerhoff and Azfar argue that ‘the multiple
meanings of empowerment and the relative lack of systematic studies across
a range of cases limit our ability to make precise conclusive statements
regarding the relationship between community empowerment, decentralisation
and outcomes relating to democratic deepening and service delivery
effectiveness’ (2006: 29).
Where studies do exist, they are usually based on one or a handful of cases. In the
area of the impact of citizen engagement in local governance, for example, there
is a growing body of work, but many of these studies offer different and sometimes
contradictory results. For instance, many are sceptical about the results that
participation can achieve, arguing that elite capture, lack of civic capacities, or other
local factors will predominate in determining the potential gains of citizen participation
(Bonfiglioli 2003; Golooba-Mutebi 2004; Crook and Sturla Sverrisson 2001).
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
14
G
G
G
G
On the other hand, other studies are more optimistic. Gaventa’s (2006) work with
southern researchers in seven countries assessing the outcomes of participation
for social justice through local governance found positive impacts related to
building confidence and self-esteem of excluded groups, greater political
inclusion with linked changes in development priorities, changed attitudes of
public officials and intellectual elites, and broader outcomes related civil society
capacity, governance arrangements and policy change. Challenging the
dominant participation and decentralisation approach, Gaventa argues that
‘where combined with processes of empowerment and inclusion in the social as
well as the political spheres, greater participation in decentralised governance
processes can be achieved and in turn can contribute to social justice goals’
(2006: 36). Another study by Baiocchi et al. (2006) found that impact of
participatory budgeting in Brazil, though somewhat mixed on measures of
empowerment, was strongly associated with a reduction in extreme poverty.
More recently, a project from the LogoLink research programme examined case
studies in six countries and found tangible positive impacts of civic engagement
in local governance on the delivery of public services. These were related to
political, administrative/public management, and ‘material’/ developmental factors
(Hossain 2009; Abraham-Talks 2010).
In an attempt to find more definitive results on this subject, some have argued
for what they call a ‘gold standard’ form of external, quantitative evaluation,
attempting to isolate the impacts of participation through randomised evaluation
studies. However, even when large-scale, many such interventions are limited
by their applicability to single-country settings and only small variations in
treatment. And still, results produced by experimental methods result in conflicting
findings regarding the potential impact of citizen participation.
A recent randomised evaluation of three different interventions designed to
promote community monitoring of public education services in Uttar Pradesh
suggests no positive effects on the level of parent involvement in educational
committees, quality of teaching or educational outcomes in class (Banerjee et al.
2010). The authors suggest that the large group action potentially necessary for
positive effects is difficult to initiate and sustain, particularly when local people
are misinformed about the quality of education and the functioning of village
educational committees. However, the research found that information alone was
not enough to increase the positive effects of community monitoring, and that of
the three interventions, the one had most positive effects was a capacity-building
initiative focused on enhancing the individual capacities of village volunteers to
support children’s learning that had most positive effects.
However, community monitoring of services has been shown to be effective in
other contexts. Björkman and Svensson (2009) studied the impact of
community-based monitoring on healthcare delivery in Uganda, by tracking the
impact of ‘citizen report cards’ from 55,000 households on local health services.
Unlike most randomised evaluations, this study incorporated participatory
research methods into the experiment by encouraging communities to tailor the
monitoring system according to their concerns. The researchers found that the
community monitoring project produced significant effects, including increases
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
15
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
16
in the quality and quantity of health care provision in treatment communities3
relative to the control group.
Findings might also differ, or seem to contradict, depending on the type of impact
being studied. In separate analyses of the effects of citizen participation in
Indonesia’s nation-wide Kecamatan (sub-district) Development Project (KDP),
Olken (2007) found that citizen-led monitoring was less effective than state-led
monitoring in reducing corruption at the local level of KDP implementation.
However, looking at individual and group-level outcomes, Gibson and Woolcock
(2008) found that citizen participation in KDP was associated with the increased
empowerment of marginalised groups and strengthened capacity for conflict
resolution.
How does one explain such difference in conclusions, often based on studies in
the same countries? Variations depend on whose perspective is privileged, which
methodologies are used, how the meaningfulness of changes is determined, and
how the contextual and multi-directional nature of change is dealt with. Our own
view is that deep qualitative understanding is needed to respond to these
challenges. At the same time, we argue, we can use approaches involving the
systematic review and meta-analysis of qualitative data in a rigorous way in order
to examine key findings and trends beyond any one case. As we argue in the next
section, the Citizenship DRC case studies give us a particularly good opportunity
to do so.
3 The contribution of the Citizenship
DRC to the debate
The question of the impact of citizen engagement is an important one not only for
broad debates, but also for the culmination of the work of the Citizenship DRC. In
2000, in a draft concept proposal for the launch of this research programme, the
programme’s principal investigators argued, ‘if development assistance is to be
effective in meeting the poverty targets, new approaches, which attempt to rebuild
the concept of citizenship and the ways in which citizens influence and contribute
to more responsive and accountable institutions, are absolutely critical’ (IDS
2000a: 1). The case study material from over 20 countries gathered by the
programme provides a rich qualitative dataset through which to explore what has
been learned about this proposition.
The research approach of the Citizenship DRC had a number of key characteristics
which are important for understanding the case studies on which our sample is
based. Our researchers did not assume that greater engagement led automatically
to pro-poor change, but instead that the way rights are claimed in different contexts
3 Based on measures of increased infant weight, decreased child mortality, higher utilisation of services
and an improved perception of service quality.
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
17
is a key determinant of a positive outcome. The proposal for the establishment of
the centre argued that ‘while strengthening the participation of the poor is critical,
the effects are bounded by institutions. While improving institutional accountability
is important, it will falter without new forms of engagement by the poor themselves.
To do either, a better understanding is needed of how rights of citizenship are
articulated and acted upon in different contexts’ (IDS 2000b: 1).
When the Citizenship DRC began, the principal investigators were responding to a
‘rights-based’ donor agenda, rather than a ‘results-based’ one. There was a
greater focus on how rights were achieved and institutions were made accountable,
than in current debates on the results of achieving rights and accountability. Yet,
the question of impact was also present:
While these principles of the rights-based approach are important, there still
remains much to be understood, both conceptually and empirically. In the
development field, little is yet known of how rights and citizenship are
understood by poor people themselves, how they are realised in practice
across different conditions and contexts, and with what impact.
(Citizenship DRC 2001: 9, our emphasis)
Over the life of the research programme, Citizenship DRC researchers have
articulated various key research themes, each pursuing the core concerns of
rights and accountability in a different way. Each theme was elaborated through
an iterative process of identifying key questions, pursuing these through concrete,
empirically grounded case studies, and then using these cases to draw
conclusions, interrogate existing assumptions and contribute to broader debates.
This approach resulted in the formation of seven working groups directly funded
by the Citizenship DRC and one separately funded project.
For this mapping project, we have focused on an analysis of case studies which
have been or will be published in the eight volumes of the Zed Books series on
Claiming Citizenship and in a related set of IDS Working Papers. While our focus
in these research projects was often much more descriptive than evaluative of
results and outcomes, in each there are expectations, sometimes embedded and
sometimes more explicit, of what citizen engagement might contribute to broad
development and governance goals.
Volume One of the Zed Books series, Inclusive Citizenship (Kabeer 2005),
sets out to explore how poor people in differing contexts understand and
claim citizenship, and the rights they associate with it. While the focus is
largely on meanings and understandings and how they might differ from
dominant ideas about citizenship, there are also important examples of the
outcomes that emerge from struggles for rights. These include dignity in
Brazil, the provision of security and services for women in Bangladesh,
housing and water in South Africa, and transformational empowerment in
Bangladesh.
Volume Two, Science and Citizens (Leach, Scoones and Wynne 2005)
explores issues of how citizens engage in scientific and technical debates,
and with it issues of whose knowledge is seen as legitimate, the links between
local and global processes, and how institutions respond to the multiple and
G
G
diverse voices they are meant to serve. It gives important examples of the
impact of mobilisation to achieve new rights – whether related to occupational
health and safety in India or HIV/AIDS treatment in South Africa – which
include the attainment of ‘cognitive justice’.
Volume Three, Rights, Resources and the Politics of Accountability (Newell
and Wheeler 2006) examines how citizens mobilise around rights to claim
accountability on issues affecting resources, and therefore their livelihoods.
Focusing on mobilisation for corporate as well as state accountability, there
are examples here of how citizen mobilisation links to accountable provision
of water in Mexico, housing in Kenya and decent work in Bangladesh.
Volume Four, Spaces for Change? (Cornwall and Coelho 2007) explores
whether and how new ‘invited’ spaces for participation are places for
significant change. Looking across such spaces as health councils in
Bangladesh and Brazil, local government institutions in India, and large scale
infrastructure development projects in Angola, the book argues that these
spaces have potential for revitalising democratic institutions, which in turn
may contribute to tangible development outcomes. While change is not
always immediate, such spaces offer important ‘schools for citizenship’, and
‘when well-drafted institutional spaces for participation come together with
champions for change on the inside, and well-organised, mobilised social
groups on the outside, positive changes may be seen.’ (2007: xvi).
Volume Five, Citizenship and Social Movements (Thompson and Tapscott
2010), examines the limits of participation through institutionalised forms of
engagement and the role of mobilisation and social movements in winning
rights and achieving development gains. Rather than seeing social movements
as anti-state, it argues that they can also contribute to building more
responsive and accountable state formations.
Volume Six, Citizen Action and National Policy Reform (Gaventa and McGee
2010), moves beyond the local level to examine how citizens mobilise to effect
pro-poor and pro-justice changes in national policies. The volume brings
together cases which illustrate successful and significant examples of policy
change that involved citizen engagement, and asks how they happened. In so
doing, it provides important examples of both the possibilities and limits of
achieving outcomes through citizen engagement alone, arguing that broad-based
alliances, political opportunities, and political competition are also important.
Volume Seven, Globalising Citizens? (Gaventa and Tandon 2010), offers
some examples of the dynamics and contributions of international citizen
engagements, while also asking how they affect understandings, practices
and outcomes of citizenship at the local and national levels. In so doing, it
also offers important insights to the limits of local citizen engagement in a
world of globalising authorities, but conversely of the limits of global action for
bringing about concrete change at the grassroots.
Volume Eight, Mobilising for Democracy (Coelho and von Lieres 2010),
examines how citizen mobilisation contributes to the strengthening of
democratic practices, institutions and cultures, and with it the ability of these
institutions to be more responsive to development themes. The group also
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
18
G
G
G
G
G
G
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
19
examines how mobilisation influences the possibility of building responsive
institutions and deepening democracy, and links between various strategies
for citizen mobilisation and the different outcomes they produce.
Taken together, these volumes offer a rich set of empirical case studies, each of
which is linked to questions of citizen engagement, participation and mobilisation
for achieving development and governance outcomes. They examine a range of
development sectors, contexts, issues and strategies, and form the basis of our
sample.4
4 Methodology and research design
Our findings are based on the synthesis and analysis of 100 research studies
published between 2003 and 2010 as part of the Citizenship DRC. Drawing from
current literature on the synthesis of qualitative data, we analysed a non-randomised
sample of 100 case studies from 310 Citizenship DRC research products and
accompanying grey literature. A range of disciplines and methods – including
in-depth interviews, participant observation, surveying and mixed qualitativequantitative
strategies – are represented in the sample.
As best practice for synthesis research continues to be debated in the literature,
our approach reflects our commitment to analyse our dataset within a clearly
outlined framework that is grounded in the diverse contextual, disciplinary and
methodological realities of Citizenship DRC work. As a result, we developed the
following strategy for the selection and analysis of cases:
Phase One: identifying, organising and selecting a sample of cases in a nonrandomised
yet structured way (EPPI-Centre 2007)
Phase Two: comparing qualitative research findings across cases employing
a grounded theoretical approach and developing a multiple-coding system to
group data (Miles and Huberman 1994; Yin 2003)
Phase Three: translating findings across cases with varied contexts in order
to generate a line of argument about the outcomes and pathways of citizen
engagement and participation (Noblit and Hare 1988).
The basic premise of any synthesis project is that new research questions can be
brought to a body of already existing studies in order to integrate previous findings
and contribute new insights to the literature (Cooper and Hedges 1994). Although
the meta-analysis of quantitative research has become commonplace in many
fields, approaches to qualitative research synthesis are disparate and less codified
methodologically (Schofield 2002). For researchers considering a qualitative synthesis
like ours, the tension between particularisation and generalisation of findings across
multiple studies presents a challenge – how do we compare research variables, units
G
G
G
4 Publication references for the 100 case studies are included as Annexe 1.
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
20
of analysis and results across work undertaken in varied contexts? Furthermore,
synthesis-oriented approaches to qualitative research provoke some ambivalence
on the part of researchers, as the very notion of ‘synthesis’ of outcomes could
seem at odds with the value added by qualitative methods (Campbell et al. 2003).
Based in part on the growing emphasis on evidence-based policy and practice,
however, researchers have argued that methods for qualitative synthesis must be
tested and elaborated in order to capture and build on knowledge from qualitative
findings. Increasingly, the synthesis of qualitative research is being used to test
empirical support for theories; to generate new models for theories; and to identify
‘significant domains or attributes’ for highlighting prototypes or examples of best
practice (Siau and Long 2005; Booth 2001, citing Estabrooks et al. 1994; Thorne
and Paterson 1998; Forte 1998). Particularly for areas of social research where
evidence bases are not well-established and which have strong implications for
policy, qualitative research synthesis can explore grounded experiences of social
phenomena and contribute to a balanced evidence base for policy and future
research (McDermott and Graham 2006). However, approaches tend to vary
depending on the area of enquiry, the data available and the research designs of
both the original and synthesis researchers.
The systematic review,5 developed by the UK-based Evidence for Policy and Practice
Information Centre (EPPI-Centre), is perhaps the best-known approach to qualitative
synthesis. It was inspired by the desire to reduce bias and increase reliability across
qualitative studies. As such, systematic reviewers are concerned with achieving
something akin to the ‘robustness’ traditionally associated with statistical meta-analysis
to produce evidence bases for policy, particularly in the analysis of lay experiences
of education and health. The primary components of a systematic review include an
explicitly articulated protocol for searching and selecting research studies to form the
basis of a sample, which can then be analysed in line with the new research question.
An exhaustive, non-purposive search of the literature is required as is a method for
assigning weights to findings before ‘pooling their results [to draw conclusions]
about the direction of the evidence as a whole’ (EPPI-Centre, 2007: no page).
Though the systematic review approach did inform the organisation and selection
of our cases, we did not embrace it fully for several reasons. First, it assumes that
researchers are starting ‘from scratch’ and need to expand their access to the
entire universe of relevant studies in order to establish a sample; but our starting
point was a large universe of existing studies. Because of their shared origins, our
100 studies present a relatively high degree of cross-case generalisability, sharing
a broad (but not uniform) ‘baseline’ of shared research concepts and questions
developed by Citizenship DRC working groups. This makes weighting the ‘quality’
of each study less critical to our synthesis, although we did use inclusion criteria
such as content relevance and the presence of empirical work. Although the
formula-driven nature of the systematic review is useful for articulating methods for
case selection, its emphasis on quantifying both the quality of primary studies and
the variables therein tends to be less useful for explaining emergent patterns and
themes. In particular, findings based on ethnographic research methods can get
5 Also known as ‘thematic synthesis’.
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
21
‘lost in translation’ using an approach that does not retain the original researcher’s
interpretations (Schofield 2002). As the findings from many of our studies are
based on inductive, interpretive approaches, the identification and
synthesis of findings requires a much more methodical approach to the analytical
phase than we found in the systematic review.
For better direction on the analytical stage of the synthesis, we turned to the
literature on multiple case-study analysis. Whilst most multiple case-study analyses
emphasise the need for ‘data saturation’ and tracking patterns across cases, the
methods for doing so vary. The most common approach requires software to
create multiple codes of relevant findings and synthesised themes. This allows
researchers to step back from the data and look at patterns en masse, using the
tabulation of frequencies and distributions across the sample (Miles and Huberman
1994; Yin 2003). Once codes have been developed and refined, researchers can
undertake the process of extracting the findings from isolated cases – based on
themes that emerge in the data – to ‘translating’ these outcomes across cases
(Noblit and Hare 1988). This ‘meta-ethnographic’ approach is a good alternative to
the systematic review for studies which prioritise the qualitative techniques
undertaken by the primary researchers as part of the research synthesis, and
analyse findings in varied contexts, which can then be developed into a generalised
line of argument (Campbell et al. 2003; Marston and King 2006). This approach
also encourages an iterative approach to the data, allowing returns to the sample
to develop different series of codes based on emerging patterns.
We are cognisant of the potential trade-offs inherent to the synthesis of Citizenship
DRC work, not the least of which is the risk of decontextualising how and why
outcomes occur, for the sake of formulating more generalisable conclusions about
citizen engagement. While we also recognise that case studies reflect, in part, what
researchers chose to study, these choices were guided by common themes which
were identified together by the research teams. Moreover, as most of the researchers
were deeply embedded in their own contexts, the research choices themselves
reflect something about the significance of the issues studied. While we make
observations and propositions based on the distribution and interaction of variables
in the cases, we do not test the statistical significance of such findings, due to the
format of our primary data sources and the nature of our inductive analysis. In
addition, the varied format, methods and presentation of findings in the case from
our sample do not always fit neatly within a multiple-coding system. Schofield (2002)
alludes to this when discussing the difficulty of extracting ‘findings’ from qualitative
research, as standards for presenting these vary greatly when compared to much
quantitative research. This proved particularly true for our sample, for which we
coded findings that were not necessarily the focus of the primary research studies
– in our case, the outcomes from the varied forms of citizen engagement.6 At the
same time, our approach allowed us to take into consideration any non-conformities
in the data by adding new lines of enquiry to our analysis.
6 As discussed, the majority of case studies in our sample focused on the contexts, dynamics and
meanings of citizen participation, though they also contained findings on both positive and negative
outcomes. However, eight of the 100 cases in our sample were generated by a working group that
initially concentrated on ‘success’ cases for their research agenda. It should be noted that these cases
also demonstrated failures, or ‘negative’ outcomes, which we incorporated into our analysis.
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
22
Though the diversity of findings and non-randomised selection of data challenges
traditional guidelines for proving external validity, we propose that the scope of
our cases, the presentation of outcome distributions and the basic level of
standardisation across cases inherent in a sample produced by a single research
programme go some way towards addressing this. To our knowledge, very little
research in the international development literature has used a similar approach to
the study of developmental gains and improved governance, with the exception of
a few evaluations of specific donor programmes and interventions in these areas
(O’Neill et al. 2007; Rocha Menocal and Sharma 2008; Kruse et al. 1997). Our
data set offers the opportunity to meta-analyse a sample of research studies,
each of which is steeped in rich contextual analysis. By working upwards to find
commonalities and differences across cases, we would hope to avoid some of the
challenges which face studies which start with presumed impacts, and then look
for those, regardless of contextual variation.
In keeping with our commitment to be explicit about our methodological choices,
we articulate below the various stages of our research design. Prior to case
selection and subsequent analysis, we completed two literature reviews on the
outcomes of citizen engagement, and methodologies for synthesis research.
First, we created a sample. To select cases from the hundreds of outputs produced
by the Citizenship DRC between 2003 and 2010, we organised a database of all
research studies and grey literature produced as part of the programme. From this
database, we selected case studies if the following questions could be answered
affirmatively:
1. Is the case grounded in a setting in which citizen engagement and participation
occur, regardless of the type of intervention or context?
2. Does the case present empirical work?
3. Is the case an original research product, rather than a condensed version like
a policy briefing?
4. Is the case English-language?
The final sample of 100 case studies covered a wide range of contexts. In addition
to the seven countries that were the Citizenship DRC’s core research sites –
Angola, Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa – our sample
includes affiliated research from an additional 13 countries, as well as a number of
multi-site, cross-national cases. Most cases are situated in low- and middleincome
countries on varied democratic trajectories in the global South, although –
as part of Citizenship DRC efforts to promote lesson-learning between South and
North – a small number of studies from the global North are also included. Table 4.1
outlines the number of cases in our sample, by country.
Once our sample had been identified, the coding phase began. Each of the 100
cases was imported as a text document into QSR NVivo7 before being read closely,
taking note of emergent themes within and across cases. At first, ‘broad-brush’
7 QSR NVivo is a qualitative data analysis software in which users can import text for the purposes of
coding and tracking frequencies and relationships between data.
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
23
codes were developed pertaining to observations or results in which the effects of
citizen engagement were captured. Gradually and inductively, these developed
into a system of hierarchical categories of four broad outcome types, each with
various sub-categories and with the possibility of being coded as a ‘positive’ or
‘negative’ outcome within each type.8
A second stream of coding focused on contextual variables within cases. We were
aware that mapping outcomes alone was not sufficient for understanding how
changes occurred and why certain outcomes were produced. First, we attempted
to capture the type of citizen engagement that produced the outcomes within
cases. As our research programme focused on citizen participation outside the
formal electoral sphere, we defined citizen engagement using Coelho and von
Lieres’ (2010) typology: participation through community associations, social
8 We recognise that ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ are of course normative judgements. However, we have
used them in reference to whether an outcome does or does not, respectively, contribute towards
development and democracy building goals.
Table 4.1 Number of cases, by country
Country Number of cases
Brazil 16
South Africa 16
Bangladesh 10
India 10
Mexico 5
Nigeria 4
Kenya 3
UK 3
USA 3
Angola 2
Gambia 2
Argentina 1
Canada 1
Chile 1
Jamaica 1
Morocco 1
New Zealand 1
Philippines 1
Turkey 1
Zimbabwe 1
Multiple 17
Total 100
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
24
movements, and spaces of formal participatory governance. We also looked at
country contexts by grouping cases by political regime type in order to explore the
relationship between outcomes of citizen engagement and levels of democratic
stability.
Briefly, to give an idea of how this coding worked within each case, we present
Ranjita Mohanty’s (2010) study on Social Justice Committees (SJCs) in community
level panchayats9 in Gujarat, India, and their use by dalit (low caste) citizens. The
type of engagement, then, was coded as ‘participatory governance space’,
because of the focus on the state-mandated SCJs of the panchayat. Though
Mohanty was primarily concerned with describing the inner workings and
understanding the mechanisms of participation in the SJCs, her work also touched
on tangible outcomes that resulted from dalit participation in these institutional
spaces. For instance, she observes steadily increasing engagement of dalit
participants and dalits’ improved access to material resources as the result of
having ‘voice’ on community development issues proposed in the panchayat. We
classified these as positive outcomes. However, despite the sustained levels of
participation in the SJCs, the dalits had failed to win greater acceptance by people
from higher castes. Tensions, produced in part by increased dalit visibility within
the panchayat, resulted in several instances of violent harassment. We labelled
these as negative outcomes as the result of dalit participation in these institutional
spaces.
Once all 100 cases had been coded by outcome, we scrutinised results by code,
in isolation from the body of the case study. This step in the analysis allowed us
to look more easily at patterns in the coded variables across our sample. To
ensure that findings were not too decontextualised, we tested the relationships
between various types of outcomes and contextual variables by running crosstabulations
to understand how these coding streams interacted.10
By grounding ourselves in this coded content, we worked upwards to develop a
‘line of argument’ regarding the types of outcomes that could be identified as a
result of citizen engagement as well as their concurrence – or not – with certain
types of citizen engagement. We present our findings by providing coded
extracts, where appropriate, from the case studies, as well as showing the
distributions of outcomes and contextual variables in our sample. Because certain
countries are over-represented in our sample, and to understand better the
predominance of any variables in our findings, we present distributions using
percentages.
9 Panchayats are local governance institutions which were formed in rural areas of India following a
constitutional amendment in 1992; they are responsible for ensuring economic development and social
justice for rural populations.
10 Here, cross-tabulations show simple distributions or concurrences of frequencies using various
combinations of our coding system, rather than being part of statistical significance testing.
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
25
11 These outcomes related to changes in individual or group perceptions of their right to participate, as
well as of their capacity to participate.
5 Findings
Based on our coding and analysis of almost 830 examples of outcomes from
citizen engagement in our sample of 100 cases, we have categorised four broad
areas in which citizen engagement and participation have the potential to
influence state-society r-elations in either a positive or a negative direction. These
categories are outlined in Table 5.1, and positive and negative examples given for
each.
Table 5.1 Outcomes of citizen engagement
Positive Negative
Construction of citizenship
Increased civic and political knowledge Increased knowledge dependencies
Greater sense of empowerment and agency11 Disempowerment and reduced sense of
agency
Practices of citizen participation
Increased capacities for collective action New capacities used for ‘negative’ purposes
New forms of participation Tokenistic or ‘captured’ forms of participation
Deepening of networks and solidarities Lack of accountability and representation
in networks
Responsive and accountable states
Greater access to state services and Denial of state services and resources
resources
Greater realisation of rights Social, economic and political reprisals
Enhanced state responsiveness and Violent or coercive state response
accountability
Inclusive and cohesive societies
Inclusion of new actors and issues in public Reinforcement of social hierarchies and
spaces exclusion
Greater social cohesion across groups Increased horizontal conflict and violence
Figure 5.1 shows the distribution of positive and negative outcomes across the
four categories. Overall, 75 per cent of total outcomes were coded positive and,
the remaining 25 per cent negative. Turning to the positive-negative split within
each outcome category, we see that the division conforms broadly to the overall
75–25 per cent split in total positive and negative outcomes, respectively, in our
sample, with the ‘construction of citizenship’ showing the highest percentage of
positive outcomes (80 per cent) and ‘inclusive and cohesive societies’ the lowest
(70 per cent).
Figure 5.1 Distribution of positive and negative within outcome
categories
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
26
To shed further light on how the positive and negative outcomes are distributed in
the sample, we looked within each set of negative and positive outcome categories
to understand where results clustered, shown in Table 5.2. The 35 per cent of
positive outcomes which were classified as contributing to the construction of
citizenship generally took place at the micro-level, as citizens’ awareness, sense
of citizenship and positive changes in dispositions and attitudes increased. The
next biggest clustering was in the strengthening of responsive, accountable
states, as the result of citizens gaining increased access to services, rights and
institutional accountability measures from states. The practices of citizenship –
including the capacities and sustained commitment to participation – represented
the third most common type of positive outcome, representing over one-quarter of
total outcomes. Finally, less frequently observed and coded was the development
of inclusive and cohesive societies.
Table 5.2 Distribution of positive and negative outcomes by category
Outcomes
Outcome categories Positive Negative
(n=621) (n=207)
Construction of citizenship 35% 26%
Practices of citizen participation 26% 28%
Responsive and accountable states 31% 35%
Inclusive and cohesive societies 8% 11%
Total 100% 100%
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
27
In terms of negative outcomes, we see a slightly different pattern. Here, negative
forms of state responsiveness were the predominant outcome type, representing
35 per cent of all negative outcomes. This was often the result of states’ failures
to respond to citizens’ rights claims or demands for services, as well as including
more repressive responses in the form of state-sponsored violence. Following this
category, 28 per cent of all negative outcomes occurred in the category practices
of citizenship, which tended to include the negative effects that resulted in
participatory spaces that were tokenistic, un-representative or manipulated. In
contrast with the positive outcomes, here we see a noticeably lower clustering of
outcomes for the construction of citizenship, which represented just 26 per cent of
the negative outcomes. Finally, the development of inclusive, cohesive societies in
the negative outcome category represents a small but slightly higher proportion of
outcomes than in the positive category.
We elaborate on the nature and meaning of these results below, discussing how
each can contribute in a critical, distinctive way either to positive or negative
outcomes. For each outcome category, we present specific examples that have
been extracted from our sample to demonstrate how we developed our typology.
Though we do focus mostly on the positive outcomes of citizen engagement, as a
result of the frequency of incidences in our sample, we also investigate the
circumstances under which negative outcomes were produced before turning to
our next group of findings on how contextual variables have the potential to
impact the types of outcomes resulting from citizen engagement.
5.1 Citizen engagement and the construction of citizenship
Most theories of citizenship and democracy discuss the importance of an informed
and aware citizenry who can participate in democratic life, hold the state to
account and exercise their rights and responsibilities effectively. For many
democratic theorists, such as Mansbridge (1997) and Pateman (1970), one
important function of citizen participation is that it helps to create and strengthen
citizens themselves, increasing their feelings of political efficacy and their political
knowledge. In turn, the assumption is that more informed and efficacious citizens
will ‘ultimately benefit the larger society by anchoring it in a citizenry clearer about
its interests and responsive to the claims of justice and the common weal’
(Mansbridge 1997: 423, cited in Merrifield 2001: 10).
Learning or gaining citizenship therefore is not only a legal process of being
defined as a citizen, but involves the development of citizens as actors, capable of
claiming rights and acting as for themselves – an actor-oriented approach which
has been at the heart of Citizenship DRC research from the beginning of our work
(Nyamu-Musembi 2002). Yet, as we know, in many of the societies in which we
have worked, citizens may be unaware of their rights, lack the knowledge to
engage, or not see themselves as citizens with the agency and power to act. In
such conditions, our work suggests that an important first-level impact of citizen
engagement is the development of a greater sense of awareness of rights and
empowered self-identity, which serve as a prerequisite to deepen action and
participation.
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
28
How does one ‘learn’ or ‘acquire’ the sense and efficacies of citizenship? In
reviewing the literature, Merrifield writes that learning citizenship involves knowledge,
not only of key facts, but also broader understanding and awareness; attributes,
especially the ‘arts of engagement with others’(2001: 5), and dispositions, meaning
‘deeply-held values and attitudes that underpin effective citizenship’ (2001: 6).
In our sample, such outcomes are one of the most frequently coded in total, and
comprise 35 per cent of all positive outcomes. In particular, while knowledge and
awareness are critical, the sense of one’s ability and the disposition to act –
empowerment and the construction of agency – are equally important. Merrifield’s
work reminds us that knowledge and awareness are often not built didactically –
that is, through top-down training or inscribed status – but are gained through a
process of participation itself. A first step of engagement can in fact create the
knowledge and disposition for further action.
5.1.1 Gaining knowledge and awareness
There are many examples across our case studies of where some form of citizen
participation, often taken initially in response to a felt need, an opportunity to join
an association, or an action on an immediate crisis or grievance, in turn creates
new knowledge necessary for further action and engagement. Citizen engagement
does not occur because people are fully knowledgeable and aware, but rather
involves such initial steps towards participation which can serve to create deeper
awareness. This awareness may be of one’s rights and responsibilities, or of
technical issues important to more effective engagement, or of alternatives to the
status quo; or, indeed, some combination of all three.
We have seen this iterative growth of knowledge and awareness perhaps most
notably in the work in Bangladesh, especially in Kabeer and Haq Kabir’s study of
the rights awareness of members of Nijera Kori (NK), an NGO which takes a
rights-based approach in its work. In a comparative study of NK members and
non-members affiliated with microfinance NGOs, Kabeer and Haq Kabir found that
NK members ‘were far more knowledgeable about their constitutional rights than
non-members.’ This is illustrated by the words of an NK member:
If we are to talk about the main strength of NK, I would say that in the past,
we the poor did not realise many things. My father was a sharecropper, I also
became a sharecropper. We thought that we would have to pass our days
doing the same things that our forefathers did, that those with assets would
stay rich and those without would stay poor. Through NK we came to know
that we are not born poor, that the government holds wealth on behalf of the
people, that our fundamental rights as citizens of Bangladesh are written into
the constitution. Before when I needed help, I went to the mattabar [village
elite]. Now I go to my organisation.
(2009: 49–50)
While such rights awareness may have come in part from the training by the
NGO, it also emerged from simply being able to participate in a public space with
others, out of the closed space of one’s own household. A member of BRAC told
Kabeer and Haq Kabir:
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
29
Before becoming members of BRAC, the women of this group had no
confidence. They were not even aware of their own rights. Most village
women are illiterate. They do not go out of the house, and therefore do not
have any solid conception about the world beyond. Although I myself have
always had courage, even when I was a child, I did not understand about
many issues. I had no idea about the extent of discrimination against women.
(2009: 37)
She went on to describe how change had come about: ‘People gain knowledge on
different subjects through discussions and interactions with other people. As a result,
women have slowly started to come out of their world of housework [...] I came to
know about women’s rights after becoming a member’(2009: 37). She found
herself questioning practices she had taken for granted before: ‘I now know that
women face discrimination in marriage, that it is a crime to give or take dowry.
Before, no woman ever got married without giving dowry. Now, through the
involvement of group members, a number of marriages have taken place without
dowry’ (Kabeer and Haq Kabir 2009: 37).
Similar themes of learning coming from group association and action emerge
elsewhere. In Mexico, a female health practitioner from Chiapas state interviewed
by Cortez Ruiz echoes the theme:
If I go alone, I cannot do anything; nobody will take me into account. But if
we are a group of partners, they will have to listen to us because we are
many. Our rights as women are important because in this moment it is like
waking up from a dream. Before, nobody told us anything about women’s
rights. But we have learned that we have the right to speak, to demand our
rights. Why? Because we are learning that we have the same rights that
men have.
(Cortez Ruiz 2005: 139)
This theme is also seen in South Africa, in the mobilisation of people living with
HIV/AIDS through the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), written about both by
Friedman (2010) and Robins (2005a, 2005b). Robins’ work in particular documents
how through acting on the problem of HIV/AIDS, people learned rights of
citizenship, not the other way around. Friedman quotes a member of TAC who
observed that ‘participation in TAC makes [our members] aware of what they can
do’ before narrating how TAC mobilised to change national policy:
TAC’s role in fighting the stigma of HIV and AIDS was itself an important
contribution to change, one which one activist argued is still a priority. And
information on the virus and how to cope with it helped participants take
control of a vital aspect of their lives. Crucially, victories – including those in
the courts – are said to ‘facilitate empowerment’ of members, enhancing
members’ belief that their actions can make a difference. For thousands who
would otherwise experience not only voicelessness but also stigmatisation,
TAC has been a vehicle not only to secure treatment but also to acquire a
voice and a new sense of dignity and political efficacy.
(2010: 63–4)
Such learning occurs not only in the ‘claimed’ spaces of people’s associations and
mobilisations, but can also happen in some cases through engagement in the
‘invited’ spaces of formal participatory governance. In Brazil, Cornwall’s work has
followed the opening and closing of spaces for participation in Health Councils,
especially in the town of Cabo de Santo Agostinho. While the dynamics of power
within the Council have changed over time, the learning that has taken place
throughout the long process of engagement has been extensive. As Cornwall
writes about the experience of health user representatives:
From activists with years of experience to those completely new to this kind
of engagement, their own participation was often described in terms of
crescimento (growing), gaining experiences that they might otherwise never
have had: opportunities to travel beyond the borders of the municipality and
the state; to mix with new people, hear how things were being done in other
parts of the country, to broaden their horizons; to go on courses, to learn
things that they hadn’t thought they’d ever understand; to gain knowledge,
skills and understanding that they could make use of personally and put to
the service of their communities.
(2007: 162)
5.1.2 Greater sense of empowerment and agency
As Merrifield’s (2001) work reminds us, while learning and awareness are one
important aspect of learning citizenship, they are not enough by themselves for
effective action. Personal skills, attributes and the disposition to use the knowledge
are also needed. These themes also emerge in our case studies.
For many, whether in Brazil (Cornwall 2007), Bangladesh (Kabeer 2009) or the UK
(Barnes 2007), the act of participation has helped to create in turn a confidence
for more engagement in public life, and the confidence to challenge power
imbalances. Such confidence-building involves overcoming fear. As Huq writes in
her study on Naripokkho, a women’s organisation in Bangladesh, ‘empowerment
for these meant the journey from victim to survivor, and then from survivor to
activist’ (2005: 174).
Through knowledge, awareness and increased confidence comes an overall
identity of citizenship, or the belief in one’s right and ability to participate. This
step from silence to citizenship is not taken in one leap, but is often an iterative
process, as described by a woman from a cooperative in Mexico:
We joined this organisation because we wanted to have peace in our lives.
When we joined this organisation, we found direction. First, we went to the
assembly and our forces were growing and growing. Then we began to join
with other women partners to inform them about the information that we got in
the meetings where we participated. That was the way we began to organise
other women. And then we began to understand the importance of being
organised […] We are not isolated in seeking for change. Women have
organised to claim their rights, to participate, and now that women are
organised, men accept our right to participate. We consolidate our advances,
and we have created our own spaces because we were well organised. Then
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
30
we began to look for ways to sell our handcrafts and how to demand better
payment for our work […] [At the local level] women now participate in the
assembly […] there are woman that participate in the meetings and take part
in public demonstrations.
(Cortez Ruiz 2005: 137–8)
The journey from ‘client to citizen’ is seen again and again, whether through
involvement in mobilisation, associations, or governance councils. Drawing from
many such examples of women learning rights through their engagement, Cortez
Ruiz concludes, ‘This can be interpreted as a process of citizenship construction.
Through their participation, indigenous women are promoting change and
guaranteeing their social, political and cultural rights. Their struggles are grounded
in their conviction of their ‘right to have rights’’ (2005: 143–4). Writing about the
impact of engagement in struggles against free trade in Latin America, Icaza and
colleagues talk about this as the development of political actors, in which
‘participants in the peasant and farmer networks have also come to have a
dynamic sense of themselves as political actors, empowered with new knowledge,
conceptions of solidarity and tools of struggle (2009: 34, citing Edelman 2003:
214). An NK member in Bangladesh put it more simply,
Before, we were scared to even talk to a guard. Now we know the reasons of
our fears and so we can talk to them. Even without having formal education,
through participating in NK programs and activities, I have been able to
become fully conscious human being.
(Kabeer and Haq Kabir 2009: 44)
Across a number of cases studies, and drawing from a number of continents and
contexts, we find examples of the ways in which citizen engagement is important
for the construction of citizenship itself, along a number of dimensions, including
knowledge, attributes, dispositions and a sense of active citizenship itself. This of
course does not always happen. There are examples of the reverse – where
forms of engagement may be disempowering, or may be experienced as exclusive
rather than inclusive. They may also represent ‘empty’, ‘decorative’ or coerced
forms of participation. In both Brazil and India, we found instances in which
women participated yet remained silent in new participatory spaces, largely
because they were there at the behest of others, or were fearful of reprisal if they
spoke out. Their participation is an indicator of dependency not autonomy, and is
experienced as humiliation rather than empowerment. Mohanty’s account of an
interview with an elected woman panchayat member India provides a painful
illustration:
We begin talking; she hardly answers the questions. All she has to say is that
she never attends the meetings, adding that her husband is quite active. Why
did she contest the election then?, I ask. Her voice chokes: ‘‘Family members
insisted, but you see, it’s so humiliating. All these women make fun of me all
the time and tell that I am no more than a peon in the panchayat”. I refrain
from hurting her sensibilities further, promising that I will see her when I come
to her village next time, and leave quietly.
(Mohanty 2007: 86)
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
31
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
32
Such experiences of disempowerment as the result of participation are not only
found at the local level – an accomplished, experienced Nigerian activist talks of
her experience participating in a global campaign: ‘I feel like a second class
citizen outside Nigeria [...] you are made to feel that, if you come from a
developing country’ (Gaventa and Mayo 2010: 156). An environmental activist
from Brazil spoke about the tokenistic quality of his participation at a forum in
Vancouver: ‘In fact, I did not say anything; there was no place on the agenda for
me. Everything had been agreed beforehand […] and I was called almost to
legitimise [...] And I felt very uncomfortable’ (Alonso 2010: 219).
Even where knowledge or awareness is gained, it is sometimes used for
‘performative’ purposes, reflecting positions of powerlessness, rather than with a
sense of emerging empowerment. In the Gambia, researchers report that
members of local HIV/AIDS support groups learnt very quickly what the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and its intermediaries expected of
them. This was especially true of group leaders and those with official positions:
They have learnt the expected procedural expertise, and to enact this
effectively. The values involved are sometimes quite alien to prevailing social
norms, for instance in their expectations about women representatives,
gender and decision-making. They involve talk that people can find alienating,
irrelevant or frustrating: for example ‘Yes, I went there [to a meeting] but it
was just “stigma and discrimination” “stigma and discrimination” [...] talking
about nothing’. Yet people became well aware that speaking the language of
funders and intermediary NGOs is the key to having productive engagements
with them [...] For instance, one group member showed all the certificates he
had for management training. Spreading them out on the floor, he said,
‘They’re all the same. But what’s the point – I can never use what they tell
me’. The main function and benefit of these repeated trainings, to this man,
was the food provided on the day and the per diem.
(Cassidy and Leach 2009: 26–7)
In other cases, members engaging in campaigns may have gained new knowledge,
but relied heavily on intermediaries – professional activists, NGO leaders, local
elites – to provide it. In other examples – reported repeatedly across settings –
increased knowledge was simultaneously a form of empowerment and exclusion.
Because people were more aware and confident, they found themselves disinvited
or excluded from certain meetings, committees or deliberations.
In sum, within our sample, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the
construction of knowledgeable and empowered citizens is one of the most
important sets of outcomes produced by citizen engagement. This is, in part,
because it serves as a tool with which other democratic and developmental
outcomes can be achieved.
5.2 Citizen engagement and the practice of participation
Participation and democracy theorists would argue that engagement is not only
important for constructing citizenship, but also has the potential for deepening and
expanding possibilities for citizen action. Having a sense of citizenship is one thing;
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
33
translating that into effective and sustaining change is another. Here several
themes emerge, involving the degree to which initial engagement leads to action,
and further action, on new issues or other arenas; the deepening of solidarities and
linkages for action; the opening of new spaces for action, and surfacing new issues.
5.2.1 From awareness to action
As we have already seen in the previous section, building awareness and taking
action are often an iterative journey – through action, awareness is built of oneself
as an actor; through being that actor, one becomes aware and capable of new
actions. But does the nature of action change over time? Is it transferable across
issues or sectors?
The changing nature of action is illustrated in a number of ways by the case studies.
First, because of people’s enhanced citizenship, they may be more willing to see
and challenge injustice than previously, which in turn begins to change the overall
environment of how power is exercised. A person in Bangladesh put this change
in the dynamics of power in this way:
Now the difference is that those who are powerful in society, those who have
money, they can no longer do things in the same way that they used to. A
poor person now has a different understanding of things, of themselves and
what they can do. And because of that, the rich cannot put pressure on the
poor in the way that they used to. The laws that were there before, they are
still the same laws. But we didn’t know about them, we didn’t understand what
they all meant. And because of that, they could easily just force something on
us. In my father’s day, my father was a farmer, he was not educated [...] but
now, I have some education so I understand more about society than he did.
And because of that, maybe, if someone tries to trick us, blame us for
something or treat us unjustly, we can protest.
(Kabeer 2003: 19–20)
Much of the change in the dynamics of power emerged not only because of the
greater awareness developed by citizens, but also the greater skills to use that
knowledge effectively. For instance, Mahmud (2010) writes about how worker
engagement in the garment factories in Bangladesh has led to greater negotiating
skills, arising from their realisation of the need to mobilise and organise, as well
as their knowledge of international agreements, such as the International Labour
Organisation conventions. Workers in India engaged in campaigns around
occupational disease and also acquired technical knowledge which they were able
to share with others to challenge the expertise of the medical profession
(Murlidhar 2005).
The point is that a sense of citizenship can also be enhanced with new skills and
knowledge, which contribute in turn to new forms of action. But can such a sense
of empowered participation gained on one issue or in one struggle move to others?
In other words, is participation accumulative such that enhanced citizen
engagement in one arena strengthens the possibilities in others? We have several
examples that this is the case. In Bangladesh, Kabeer’s (2009) study suggests
that women who participated in the NGO NK were more likely to participate in
decision-making within their households, less likely to vote according to their
husband’s wishes and more likely to participate in other forms of political
mobilisation than those women who were not engaged through the association. In
Brazil, Houtzager et al.’s (2003) study suggests that participation in protests also
contributed to a greater likelihood of participation in more institutionalised
participatory budgeting processes, a finding, they point out, that runs counter to
notions that protest is somehow only an irrational or anti-democratic action.
Friedman (2010) suggests that citizens who learned skills in the anti-apartheid
movement were able to use those skills and practices of citizenship in mobilising
for new rights around HIV/AIDS in the TAC.
5.2.2 The deepening of networks and alliances
While these examples suggest that engagement, at least in some conditions,
leads to new forms of action, and that skills and dispositions of engagement may
also may be transferable across issues and arenas, there is also evidence that
engagement can create new conditions to strengthen future engagement. One of
these is that through engaged citizens benefit from a thickening of alliances and
relationships, which in turn can strengthen their participation. For instance, in the
United States, a campaign for immigrant workers rights allowed ‘supporters
around the state to find each other and to begin building longer-term relationships
and collaborations’ (Ansley 2005: 208). In Nigeria and in the UK, participation in
the Global Campaign for Education created a new sense of solidarity with other
education campaigners around the world (Gaventa and Mayo 2009). Across
countries, the ability of peasant associations to share knowledge through
transnational networks was found to have contributed to the erosion of ‘the
traditional monopoly of the World Bank and other international institutions on
access to and control over key information’ (Borras and Franco 2009: 35), and
had even allowed farmers to challenge the World Bank on several controversial
issues. In the Philippines, struggles for land reform caused the thickening of
relationships and networks across state and society, illustrated when a network of
peasant organisations and NGOs was able to initiate a dialogue with the
government agency responsible for land reform, and to form a working committee
to implement new reforms (Borras and Franco 2010).
Of course, individual and organisational capacities that expand into new
participatory processes or spaces will not always produce positive gains. Just as
we saw in the previous section, while the majority of cases in our sample are
positive, there are also important examples of negative outcomes mirroring positive
gains. Thus, while in some cases the construction of citizenship leads to a greater
capacity for action, when that action occurs, it can be experienced as a negative
rather than a positive process. Our cases contain a number of examples where
participatory action is seen as merely ‘cosmetic’, decorative, meaningless, or a
‘waste of time’. In other cases, participatory action may be seen as ‘manufactured’
or ‘captured’ from above by politicians, parties, NGOs or other elites seeking to
use it for their own ends. In some cases, participatory action may have occurred,
but was seen as simply legitimating decisions perceived to have already been
made by state or other powerful actors. In such instances, action may risk
reinforcing a sense of disempowerment and contributing to people’s reluctance to
engage in the future.
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
34
Similarly, while we earlier discussed how new skills could be transferred from one
arena to another, these skills may not always be used for ‘positive’ purposes.
Some cases report examples of how local leaders learn to use their position and
capability for their own personal gains, or for competing with other groups, or for
entrenching their power as mediators or gatekeepers in the political process. In
the case of youth militias in Nigeria, for instance, enhanced capacities for action
could be used on the one hand to extract gains from the state or oil companies,
and on the other to compete and fight with other ethnic groups, sometimes
through violent means (Osaghae 2010).
While we have seen how participatory action can in some cases be used to
strengthen solidarities and networks of actors, this too can have a downside. What
is experienced as solidarity for some may be experienced as exclusion by others.
With the growing role of intermediary networks, organisations, and individuals,
issues of accountability and representation also come more strongly to the fore. In
the Amazon, questions of who was entitled to represent indigenous people grew
as these groups were invited to take part in national consultations on health
(Shankland 2010). In the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge
Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) process outlined by Scoones,
in which NGO representatives and experts and others engaged in a large scale in
deliberations on global agriculture,
Everyone recognised that, because of the way the IAASTD was organised,
‘real’ farmers and their organisations did not really get a look in – whether at
the early consultation stages in the regions [...] or subsequently. Some
regarded this as a fundamental design flaw of the whole process, undermining
the legitimacy of the effort as a whole; others saw it as a probably necessary
consequence of convening such a process, but one which allowed space for
representation by NGOs and other CSOs. For some this mediation role was
not a problem: these were people who worked on the ground in different
locations and so could reflect the concerns of farmers on the ground. Others
saw the processes of intermediation and translation as problematic, as well as
the claims made by NGOs to ‘represent’ others.
(2008: 31–2)
As these examples demonstrate, simply having a space for citizen engagement or
participation in decision-making or campaigning does not necessarily contribute to
positive practices of participation. Where citizens’ knowledge and sense of
empowerment and agency have increased, the potential for sustained practices of
participation is high. However, though individuals can learn from engagement and
use these new capacities for participating in other spaces, the quality of the
lesson ‘learnt’ is of the utmost importance – where the participatory process is
deemed legitimate and democratic (even if imperfect), positive outcomes are likely,
whereas participation in ‘hollow’ spaces can lead to disillusionment and a
decreased willingness to engage.
5.3 Citizen engagement and building responsive states
While we have seen numerous examples of how citizen engagement contributes
to the construction of citizenship and the strengthening of citizenship practices –
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
35
as well as cases where it does not – the question still remains, what difference
does citizen engagement mean to longer term outcomes related to development
and democracy? Does citizen engagement contribute to more responsive states,
which in turn are able to meet development needs, and guarantee and uphold
democratic rights? In the case studies there are abundant examples of how
engagement helps to create cultures and practices of accountability and
responsiveness, which go beyond any particular issue or specific outcome.
Though a minority, there are also examples of where this does not occur.
5.3.1 Access to development resources
In focusing in particular on how citizens engage with states, a number of case
studies in our sample ask whether states in turn become more responsive in terms
of delivering services, including in areas of health, education, water, housing and
infrastructure, and access to livelihoods. There are some very compelling large
scale examples of where citizen mobilisation or engagement contributed to national
level policy changes which in turn led to new development outcomes, especially in
the volume Citizen Action and National Policy Change. This documents, for
example, how the urban reform movement in Brazil known as the Right to the City
campaign led to access to public goods and housing for the urban poor, as well
as to increased state capacity for urban planning (Avritzer 2010). Similarly, the
work on the TAC in South Africa demonstrates the role of citizen engagement in
securing public recognition of HIV/AIDS as a health issue and access to publiclysupplied
anti-retroviral medicines for 60,000 people (Friedman 2010) while the
work in Mexico shows how a campaign on maternal mortality contributed to
changes in national level budget reforms on the issue (Layton et al. 2010). In
Chile, citizen action on child rights contributed to a decrease in child poverty
(Fuentes 2010), while in Philippines the movement for land reform contributed to
access to land and livelihoods for poor farmers (Borras and Franco 2010).
While these cases, which were deliberately chosen as ‘success,’ show how citizen
action can change national policy in a pro-poor way, throughout our case studies
there are also many examples of change at a much smaller scale. Although the
literature often questions whether citizen engagement can lead to positive
development outcomes, our case studies still revealed over thirty concrete cases
of where it has done so. Citizen engagement in various forms has led to
improvements in health, livelihoods and food, water, housing and urban services
and education, usually through gaining increased government attention and
responsiveness to issues that might have been previously ignored. Moreover, by
looking across multiple cases, we see examples across countries and contexts of
where these contributions occur.
In the area of health:
In Brazil, there are examples of how new modes of participatory governance
are contributing gradually to improved access to services and quality of care
in the health system (Cornwall et al. 2006).
In Mexico, the development of participatory approaches to health care has led
to a network of community clinics, as well new collaboration with the state
health ministry on dealing with infectious diseases (Cortez Ruiz 2010).
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
36
G
G
In Bangladesh, mobilisation by Naripokkho on issues of health related to
violence against women has led to new initiatives from the Government and
UNICEF to provide support and treatment for survivors of acid attacks (Huq
2005).
Also in Bangladesh, studies by Kabeer (2003) find that prior participation in
the NGO NK increased the confidence of members to go to hospitals and to
qualified medical practitioners, as well to command respect and better
treatment when they were there.
In India, mobilisation on occupational health by workers led to the capacity to
demand better diagnoses and treatment of occupational disease (Murlidhar
2005).
Similarly, in South Africa, mobilisation through litigation led to a major legal
victory for workers affected by asbestos, and increased access to compensation
from the government (Waldman 2010).
In South Africa, new opportunities for participation in hospital boards led to
changes in health approach, ‘from being curative in nature to one that is
primary and holistic, addressing the impacts of socioeconomic issues such as
unemployment and poverty on the well-being of the community’ (Williams
2007: 108).
In the UK, residents successfully mobilised to keep a health centre open, and
thus maintain access to health services (Barnes 2007).
In the area of food and livelihoods:
In Bangladesh, surveys found members of local members of the NGO NK
were able gain and protect household livelihoods better than non-members.
They were, for instance, more able to resist the ‘predatory efforts of local
elites’, to claim access to government-provided land rights, and in the case of
workers, to negotiate around wages and remuneration. Nationally, they were
able to mobilise on government policies, such as industrial shrimp farming,
which were seen to be destructive of the environment and the livelihoods of
the poor (Kabeer 2003).
In India, mobilisation by Parivartan activists around fraud in ration shops led
to improvements in the public distribution system of food (Baviskar 2010).
In Mexico, mobilisation by indigenous women on their rights led to new
initiatives around selling handicrafts and demanding better payment for their
work and to creation of local cooperatives focusing on livelihoods and food
security (Cortez Ruiz 2005; Cortez Ruiz 2010).
In the Gambia, engagement in patient support groups has been a route for
the very poor to gain economic and social support, not from the government
directly, but from the services that well-funded NGO groups provide (Cassidy
and Leach 2009).
In Angola, community associations first involved in dealing with issues of
displacement from the many years of civil war are increasingly engaged in
production-related activities, to gain access to technical expertise, credit and
agricultural inputs from government and other providers (Ferreira and Roque
2010).
In the US, mobilisation of low-wage workers has led to passage of the
‘living-wage’ ordinances, leading to increased incomes for the working poor
(Luce 2006).
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
37
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
In the provision of water and housing:
In India, activation of SJCs has contributed the redistribution of governmentprovided
development services towards the needs of dalit communities,
including provision of water and electricity, land and housing, roads and
infrastructures, and access to welfare services available for the poorest of the
poor (Mohanty 2010).
Also in India, in the rural area of Chiplun, citizen-organised public hearings on
issues of environmental degradation due to industrial pollution led to the
industry agreeing to set up an effluent treatment plant (Newell et al. 2006).
Also in India, mobilisation of nomads led to the establishment of ‘residential
rights’, the key to receiving other government services, and to getting clear
title to land and housing (Pant 2005).
In South Africa, social mobilisation led to the courts overturning certain water
service practices in Johannesburg as unconstitutional, thus making water
more accessible to poor people (Mehta 2005).
Also in South Africa, mobilisation through the courts on issues of housing led
to a major victory known as Grootboom judgment, which upheld the right to
housing, water and sanitation for homeless people. While the implementation
of the judgement has been inadequate in many ways, the combination of a
social movement with action in the courts led to an important victory (Williams
2005).
In Kenya, Nyamu-Musembi (2006) documents how citizen mobilisation
through the courts led to protection of housing in Mombasa.
In post-war Angola, the formation of associational water committees led to
improved water services in urban Luanda, and extension of civic engagement
into other aspects of urban development, such as sanitation (Roque and
Shankland 2007).
In Argentina, engagement in participatory budgeting processes by 14,000
local residents led to the identification of 1,000 priorities for action on urban
services, 600 of which were incorporated into a development plan (Rodgers
2007).
In the area of education:
In India and Nigeria, as well as internationally, mobilisation around the ‘right
to education’ has led to concrete changes in state and national policies, which
deal with barriers to children entering and staying in school (Gaventa and
Mayo 2009).
Mobilisation of indigenous people in Chiapas led to teaching in indigenous
languages and improved education related to local culture and traditions
(Cortez Ruiz 2010).
In Bangladesh, parents with girls attending school mobilised to encourage
families in the community to send their children, particularly girls, to school. In
addition to providing school fees and supplies to facilitate girls’ enrolment,
parents also monitored teacher attendance to discourage absenteeism
(Kabeer and Haq Kabir 2009).
To say that engagement has the capacity to lead to increased responsiveness in
the provisioning of services and development does not mean of course that this
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
38
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
always occurs. There are also examples of reversals of gains, making sustainability
an issue; and there are examples of uneven implementation of gains, even if they
have appeared to be victories.
The development of South Africa’s national anti-retroviral treatment programme is
an example of a positive gain in health services that was then undermined by
issues of coverage and sustainability. Despite the continued efforts of organisations
like the TAC to expand treatment coverage to over five million South African
citizens living with HIV/AIDS, there have been ongoing challenges to coverage –
including the lack of health infrastructure and access to appropriate levels of
treatment – since the programme began. Perhaps even more seriously, the rising
prominence of HIV/AIDS denialism amongst many South African public officials in
the intervening years has entrenched many of the pre-existing barriers to treatment,
including social stigma of testing and treatment; lack of basic awareness about
HIV transmission and treatment and the use of traditional medicines and remedies
instead of anti retro-viral drugs (Friedman 2010).
More work is needed therefore to understand the enabling conditions of success,
what drives sustainability and how change happens as political and social
contexts shift, but the starting point from these cases is that the potential for
engagement to contribute to concrete development gains, through demands for
more responsive state action, should not be ignored.
5.3.2 The achievement of rights
While there are many examples of citizen engagement linked to increased service
delivery through greater state responsiveness, another important area is how
engagement can be a pathway for securing and creating rights. An important
argument of the Citizenship DRC has been that actor-oriented approaches to
rights – those that recognise the agency of citizens to demand their rights – is
important. Citizenship is not only about participation in the procedures of
democracy, but also about the ‘right to have rights’, and the right to participation in
struggles for the creation of new rights (Dagnino 2005a and b).
What then have we learned about the ways in which citizen engagement contributes
to the extension of rights? To some degree, this can be seen in many of the
examples of the previous section. A number of cases reported that through
increased awareness of rights, they were able to access services to which they
were entitled, be those linked to education, health, or water. In some cases, citizen
engagement helped to convert a development resource (which can be given or
taken away), into a development right (on which people can lay a moral claim). In
South Africa especially, which has a strong constitution as regards social and
economic rights, mobilisation in the areas of housing, health, HIV/AIDS and water
made those rights real, through insisting that the government had responsibilities
to provide them in new and more inclusive ways. The enabling legal framework
helped make mobilisation possible, but in turn, mobilisation helped deepen the
reality and implementation of the law, and of the development resource itself.
Mobilisation to claim access to existing legal and constitutional rights was an
important strategy in other cases too, especially for excluded groups. This can be
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
39
seen in the case of the nomads and the dalits in India (Pant 2005; Mohanty
2010), sex workers in Bangladesh (Huq 2005) and indigenous groups in the
Brazilian Amazon (Shankland 2010).
But in other cases mobilisation was a way of changing legal or constitutional
frameworks to create new rights, or to extend rights found in international
covenants to the national and local levels. Perhaps two of the most far-reaching
cases of this are found in the areas of women’s rights. In Turkey, an extensive
campaign for reform of the Turkish Penal code secured thirty-five amendments
towards recognition of women’s sexual and bodily rights, despite strong opposition
in the country (Ilkkaracan 2010). In Morocco, after decades of feminist and activist
mobilisation, in 2004 a new Family Code was passed in Parliament, fundamentally
altering the rights of women under family law within an Islamic framework (Pittman
and Naciri 2010).
There are also examples found in the movement for the new Right to the City in
Brazil, which laid the legal framework for dealing with slum and development
issues affecting the urban poor (Avritzer 2010); and in the role of Kenyan NGOs in
strengthening the provision of human rights in the Constitution, and establishing in
2002 a National Commission on Human Rights, which in turn led very rapidly to a
decrease in the use of torture by the state (Okello 2010). In Nigeria, a declaration
of the Ogoni Bill of Rights has opened up highly contested debates over rights to
economic resources and to environmental protection (Osaghae 2010). In India, a
successful campaign for constitutional reform affirmed the right of every child to
receive free and compulsory education up to the age of principal, though much is
left to do in terms of putting this into practice (Gaventa and Mayo 2009). And in Chile,
children’s rights organisations and religious groups pushed the national government
to enhance the social protection of children based on the country’s international
commitment to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Fuentes 2010).
Citizen engagement and mobilisation has been important not only for securing and
extending social and economic rights, but also for protecting and deepening political
rights. In Nigeria, for instance, civil society mobilisation played an important role in
countering a move by the President for an unconstitutional third term, in demanding
reforms to the electoral procedures in and in monitoring electoral practices (Ibrahim
and Egwu 2010). Similarly in Bangladesh, growing citizen awareness of rights of
citizenship also contributed to demands around fair elections (Kabeer 2003).
The case studies also provide some – though limited – evidence of how citizen
engagement has led to changes in local judicial and conflict-resolution systems. In
Bangladesh, citizens involved in the NGO NK are more likely to be invited to
participate in shalishes, (local conflict-resolution bodies) and in some cases have
set up their own shalishes (Kabeer 2003). Over time, these local groups came to be
seen not only as more impartial, but also carried enough legitimacy to be listened to
by the elites. In turn, achieving justice in this way strengthened the mobilisation of
the poor. Kabeer and Haq Kabir write, ‘The availability of a justice mechanism that
is not loaded in favour of the rich and powerful has played an important role in
building organisational support among the poor, particularly those who had direct
experience of the unjust treatment that had been meted out to the poor. A number of
our respondents told us that they had joined these organisations because of their
memory of past injustice’ (2009: 38). A local citizen echoed this in his/her own way,
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
40
Before, we had no say in the local shalish. We had no right to speak about what
was fair or unfair. Apart from that we were not allowed to be part of the committees,
for school, madrasa (Islamic school), graveyard and so on. But now we have
established our rights. Nowadays, we are the ones who organise the village court
or shalish. In different committees, landless people are now also included. When
we came to understand about all our rights, we learnt to speak out for them as well.
(Kabeer and Haq Kabir 2009: 45)
Case study evidence then gives us three ways in which citizen mobilisation has
contributed to the realisation of rights: through the strengthened claim for and
implementation in practice of existing legal rights; through extension or creation of
new rights; and in at least one instance, through strengthening more impartial local
justice processes.
Again, this does not happen in every case. In some cases, the recognition or
extension of rights is piecemeal. For example, in Morocco, while the 2004 reforms
to the Family Code were welcomed by many, some of those involved in the
mobilising campaign that supported the reforms were disappointed by certain
omissions from the final product. In particular, accountability concerns have been
raised as the result of the creation of new family courts, separate from the central
judicial system. In addition, the reforms to the Family Code did not address
important matters related to inheritance law (Pittman and Naciri 2010).
Still, the extension of rights in one direction, even if incomplete, provides expanded
opportunities for claim-making and the potential for building on previous gains. As
the aforementioned cases demonstrate, the map of the possible outcomes which
can occur through citizen mobilisation continues to push states to respond to their
citizens’ claims.
5.3.3 State accountability
To a degree, each of the above two areas are about the strengthening of state or
institutional accountability and responsiveness to citizen-led initiatives. But while
each is focused on a particular development resource or right, a third area to
explore is the extent to which citizen engagement helps to create new forms of
institutional accountability more generally. Here there are several examples which
involve the creation of greater transparency and right to information, new
institutionalised mechanisms for engagement, or changing cultures and attitudes
of state-society engagement.
Gaining transparency and the right to information is critical to the ability of citizens
to hold states to account. As the work by Newell and Wheeler (2006) suggests,
accountability is not only about legal procedures, but also requires an accompanying
culture of accountability, or a sense that it can be secured. How is this achieved?
An in-depth account can be found in the Baviskar’s (2010) study of the right to
information movement in India, and its success in helping contribute to the passage
of one of the strongest right to information laws in the world. Through this process,
citizens not only gained the law, but a new sense of their right and ability to use it
– in turn affecting the culture and sense of accountability more generally. Baviskar
describes the importance of this change:
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
41
All over India, along dusty rural roads and city streets, one can now see signboards
in the local language announcing ongoing construction works. Whether repairing
a road, building a school or bridge, or digging a check-dam, the government
prominently displays basic information about the work undertaken. The signs
make public the purpose and technical specifications of a project, and its cost,
source of funding, executing agency, and date of commencement. They declare
the government’s commitment to transparency in public expenditure,
acknowledging a demand that has been vigorously voiced by various social groups
in India in the last decade, latterly under the rubric of the National Campaign for
the Right to Information. Through the signboards, a major achievement in the
struggle for greater accountability in governance is writ large across the Indian
landscape […] Upon payment of a nominal fee and photocopying charges, any
citizen can now ask for specific information and the competent government
authority is required to respond within a short period. If information is not provided,
or if it is inaccurate or incomplete, citizens can complain to a Public Grievance
Commissioner. If an officer is found delaying or withholding information or supplying
wrong information, they can be fined a fixed amount for each day of delay.
(2010: 131).
As this case makes clear, not only is the new law being used by citizens to
strengthen their voices for accountability, but the process of struggling for the law
taught them many of the skills and competencies necessary to use it effectively.
The support of key government officials as allies in the passage and implementation
of the act now make it an excellent example of how a citizen-led movement can
help create a new framework and culture of accountability practices.
In other cases, citizen engagement led to other forms of institutionalised practices
that in turn strengthen the possibilities of further citizen engagement and citizen-led
accountability demands. For instance:
As a result of the campaign against maternal mortality in Mexico, the issue
must be taken into consideration every year when the national budget is being
considered. In addition, the Health Ministry now requires states report on
maternal deaths, opening the way for further citizen monitoring of the issue at
the state and local level (Layton et al. 2010).
The Right to the City campaign in Brazil helped to institutionalise the right to
citizen participation in urban planning and gave powers to local governments
to grant land use rights to poor residents (Avritzer 2010).
The campaign for the right to education in Nigeria has opened up spaces for
participation at the national and regional level for civil society organisations
and to monitor education policies. The Civil Society Action Coalition now sits
on National Council on Education, the Presidential Advisory Committee on the
MDGs, the Universal Basic Education Commission and other state bodies
(Gaventa and Mayo 2009).
In the area of citizen participation on trade, citizen mobilisation helped to bring
debate on trade issues into the public arena, and also led mechanisms whereby
the regional body, the North American Commission for Environmental
Co-operation, was required to receive and respond to citizen complaints
around compliance with environmental law, in order to promote exports or
investments (Icaza et al. 2009).
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
42
G
G
G
G
In these cases, citizen engagement has been accompanied not necessarily by
new legal reforms for accountability, but by the creation of new institutional
mechanisms whereby citizen voice can be expressed to government institutions.
In other cases, the move towards more accountable government has been driven
more by cultural changes than by the law itself. As we have seen in a number of
instances earlier, gaining the sense and skills of rights and citizenship can lead to an
increased expression of demands from below – which governments and elites over
time may not be able to ignore. In Brazil, Cornwall et al. write how the municipal
health council in one Brazilian city is gradually transforming a ‘culture of clientelism
into a culture of accountability’ (2006: 159). In Bangladesh, Naripokkho has set up
processes for monitoring state interventions on violence against women, which
checks incidences of violence reported to police stations, hospitals and the courts,
and which then regularly presents its findings back to the service providers, on a
basis of trust and dialogue (Huq 2005). In Angola, local associations, which had
originally been formed as committees of displaced people during the conflict
period, have continued in the post-war period, and with decentralisation are
gradually engaging with local government officials on key issues related to social
and economic life in their communities. As they do so, and as Angola moves
gradually towards becoming a more democratic country, the relationship between
associations and local government is also changing. A local Vice-Administrator
reports,
In the past there was no clarity in relation to the work of the associations. The
relationship was not good. Currently, the Administration recognises the
importance of the associations to the communities. They are involved in
actions against poverty and this is a goal of the government. We have the
common task of improving the lives of communities.
(Ferreira and Roque 2010)
Where we thus see examples of how participation contributes to development
outcomes, the realisation of rights, and to increased responsivenesss and
accountability of state institutions, as in the other outcome areas, this does not
always occur. In fact, the highest percentage of ‘negative’ outcomes we recorded
has to do not with citizen practices, but with the state response – just over one
third of the negative outcomes were coded in this area.
In many cases, as we have seen, these outcomes are experienced as simple
state recalcitrance. Authorities simply refuse to respond to citizen voices or
demands. In other cases, they respond, but in a piecemeal or tokenistic fashion; a
policy may be declared, but not implemented. In other cases, victories may be
short-lived; gains are followed by reversals. In some cases, the loss of key
reformers or champions inside the state can affect the sustainability of outcomes.
In the Philippines, for instance, reformers in the state played a key role in
supporting civil society movements for land reform; yet when the reformers moved
on, especially those at the top, the movements were difficult to sustain.
While all of the above mechanisms of institutional recalcitrance are well-documented
in literature on state responsiveness and accountability, what was more surprising
in our examples were the number of times in which reprisals, force and violence
were used by authorities in response to greater citizen voice. In these cases,
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
43
states may have been ‘responsive’, but their responsiveness was in the form of
backlash, designed to stifle dissent and crush opposition.
Such reprisals were experienced in a number of ways. In some instances, as we
have seen earlier, those who challenged the status quo found themselves
‘uninvited’ to invited spaces of participation, or labelled and ostracised as
‘troublemakers’ rather than as representatives of genuine citizen concerns. In
other cases, harsher political and economic tactics were used. In Bangladesh and
India, workers who spoke out against working conditions risked losing their jobs
and were silenced by economic power. In other cases, developmental benefits
could be used as political weapons: welfare benefits and land and housing rights
could be given by authorities, but also be taken away.
Yet in a striking number of cases, in many regions and localities, state
responsiveness appears in the form of heavy-handed security apparatuses
employing repressive measures when challenged by citizen mobilisation. Cases
from our sample have captured violent attacks and atrocities by police, often
infringing civil and political rights, occurring as the result of labour mobilisation in
Bangladesh, environmental mobilisation in India and public-service protests in
South Africa, amongst other examples (Mahmud 2010; Mohanty 2010; Thompson
and Nleya 2010). In these cases, citizen action contributes not necessarily to the
realisation of rights, but rather to their violation. In the contexts of these examples,
violent responses to citizen mobilisation create a circle of physical conflict,
undermining the potential for deepening the democratic dynamic between state
and society.
While significant, these confrontations represent only a small number of outcomes
in our sample, with most interactions between states and societies producing
contestation, not widespread repression. We can see then multiple examples of
citizen engagement contributing to the development of state responsiveness, and
its capacity to deliver development outcomes; recognise and support rights and
develop new forms of citizen-state accountability. These examples are robust
enough, and drawn from enough different contexts and sectors, to suggest that
the role of citizen engagement should not be ignored, but neither should its
outcomes be assumed. While the contributions are great, so too are the risks.
5.4 Citizen engagement and inclusive and cohesive societies:
towards greater inclusion
While much of the work of the Citizenship DRC has focused on the construction
and practices of citizenship, and on the relationship of citizens to their states,
there are also important outcomes of engagement relating to building an inclusive
and cohesive society. We can understand these along two dimensions: a greater
sense of inclusion of previously marginalised groups; and a greater sense of social
cohesion across groups. This is particularly important in fragile contexts or settings
with historically high levels of horizontal inequalities, whether perceived or real.
As most of our cases focused more on society-state relations than on social
relations alone, the numbers in this area are relatively small. A common theme in
the work is the importance not only of the realisation of services, rights and
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
44
accountability, but with it, a sense of recognition, of social identity and dignity
which are important for a sense of inclusion. As one respondent said in Wheeler’s
study of citizenship in the favelas (urban slums) of Rio de Janeiro, ‘dignity is
everything for a citizen – and we have no dignity. We are treated like cattle in the
clinics, on the buses and in the shops. Only in rich neighbourhoods are people
treated with dignity’ (Wheeler 2005: 109).
The theme of how citizen engagement contributes to challenging stigma, and
developing dignity, emerges in other places as well. In South Africa, participation
in the TAC became a way to challenge the stigma of HIV/AIDS, and for members
to gain a new sense of their own dignity and self-worth (Friedman 2010). Robins
describes the importance of ‘experiential dimensions of belonging’ for group
members, many of whom are ‘often exposed to stigma and rejection from their
families and communities’ (2005a: 122) . Similarly in Morocco and Turkey, the
campaigns for women’s rights became important not only for changing legal
provisions, but also for challenging social norms affecting women in the household
and in broader society. Moreover, as Pittman and Naciri point out in the Morocco
case, through the alterations to the Family Code, ‘religious law was no longer
seen as sacred and untouchable, but rather open to re-interpretation based on
principles of equality within the Quran as well as more universal principles of
dignity, freedom and equality’ (2010: 188). This was a turning point, they argue,
not only for women but ‘for the entire society’.
While strengthening a sense of dignity and respect, and overcoming social stigma
are important at an individual level, they also are important more broadly, as new
voices and issues previously hidden from public spaces come into view. The
theme of previously ‘invisible’ voices emerging on the public stage is a recurring
one in our studies. Symbolically, this was seen for instance in the case of
Naripokkho, as Huq writes,
We wanted not only to let the survivors find their voices but also bring them
into the movement against violence against women. The torchlight procession
organised by Naripokkho on the eve of International Women’s Day in 1998
was led by Bina, Nurunnahar and Jhorna, victims [of acid attacks] who had
made the journey to activists and no longer covered their faces.
(2005: 174)
At an individual level, the ‘uncovering of faces’ – the bringing into public eye
previously private issues – can be important in the journey to empowerment. But it
also can help to overcome social discrimination, and to create possibilities for a
more pluralistic and inclusive society.
With new voices, come new issues in the public arena. In Bangladesh, due to the
mobilisation of Naripokkho in response to the eviction of sex workers from a
complex of brothels,
for the first time in the country’s history, a major public debate took place in
the newspapers over the meaning of sex work and the status of sex workers
[...] All the major dailies carried news and features on the topic for nearly a
month after the eviction.
(Huq 2005: 176)
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
45
Or, in an example of a very different kind of issue, the participation of over
150,000 people in consultations over trade issues in Latin America helped to bring
negotiations into the public eye. In turn, ‘the ability of governments to lead processes
of trade integration without a popular mandate and with low levels of participation
from organised civil society has been severely challenged’, also contributing to an
opening of spaces for participation more generally (Icaza et al. 2009).
Citizen engagement can result not only in greater inclusiveness but also in enhanced
forms of social cohesion in communities with embedded inequalities and strained
social interrelations between various identity groups. Though gains in this area
might be more difficult to track without the benefit of longer-term research analysis,
we still observe some instances of this in our sample. In Nigeria, for instance, the
use of forum theatre provided a unique opportunity for villagers to express in the
public sphere their grievances about divisions arising from traditional community
hierarchies and wealth inequality (Abah and Okwori 2005).
However, certain forms of citizen participation which – at least on the surface –
seem well-placed to facilitate greater inclusiveness might, in practice, produce little
to no effects. Several cases from India were particularly useful in shedding light
on this phenomenon, especially those that highlighted state-designed village-level
institutions meant to include women and scheduled castes and tribes within local
governance procedures. Mohanty, reporting on women’s representation in the
various village panchayat sub-committees, writes, ‘It is all too obvious that women
are recruited to watershed committees to meet procedural requirements. It seems
ironic to talk about “choice”, since most women members are not even aware that
they have membership in the committee’ (2007: 85). This is a particularly perverse
form of exclusion, reinforced by the elusive prospect of inclusion.
In her other work on the situation of the dalits in Gujarat, Mohanty (2010) describes
a mixed picture. While government-sponsored SJCs of the local panchayat have
proved successful in generating some resource gains to this historically excluded
group, dalits continue to be socially ostracised within their local communities. The
developmental gains they achieved through their participation in the committees
had less of an effect on genuine community cohesion, with Mohanty reporting a
number of incidences of violent community reprisals against dalits, many of which
went unsanctioned.
In another example from the Niger Delta, citizen groups have attempted to hold
public and private-sector actors to account for the lack of investment in infrastructure
and economic development in the region, as well as the environmental degradation
as the result of natural resource exploration. However, many of these mobilisations
have been sharply divided by ethnicity, limiting the opportunities for a more
cohesive, broad-based understanding of citizenship and rights and exacerbating
pre-existing inter-ethnic disputes over rents and resources (Osaghae 2010).
The variations in outcomes in this area are particularly important to understand given
that many donor-led initiatives do not take local social dynamics into adequate
account. Where certain groups have been historically excluded, or in regions with
low levels of social cohesion, the promotion of measures for citizen engagement
must take into careful consideration the histories of local population groups and
the best strategies for promoting genuinely inclusive participatory processes.
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
46
6 The impact of strategy and context
In previous sections we have reviewed both positive and negative outcomes
emerging from our case studies of citizen engagement. From this inductive
exploration, we have developed four categories of outcomes, each with several
subcomponents. They demonstrate how citizen engagement contributes to the
construction of citizenship, the practices of participation, the strengthening of
responsive and accountable states and the development of inclusive and cohesive
societies. We have also discussed the risks of citizen engagement in each
category, highlighting examples where negative outcomes also occur.
While we believe that these descriptive findings are useful in their own right (as
shall be explored in the concluding section), we were also cognisant of the
potential to explore the variation in outcomes according to a number of contextual
factors. In order to get a more nuanced view of the findings, we focus in particular
on whether these outcomes, both positive and negative, are affected by the
strategies, or forms, of engagement used, and the national political context in
which the engagement occurs.
6.1 How does engagement strategy effect outcome?
As described earlier, each case is centred on a particular type of citizen
engagement, including a range of civil society interventions, various styles of
mobilisation and activism, and engagement with state-sponsored participatory
governance initiatives. Because the Citizenship DRC prioritised other forms of
engagement, citizen participation in formal electoral politics is not a major
component of our analysis – although important and also sometimes an outcome
of the aforementioned types of engagement. Broadly speaking, our case studies
reflect four types of citizen engagement:
1. Participation in local associations;
2. Participation in social movements and campaigns;
3. Participation in formal participatory governance spaces
4. Multiple approaches, which employ several of these strategies.
The distribution of case studies across these categories is shown in Figure 6.1.
This distribution yields some surprises. For instance, one might have expected
more examples of formalised interactions through formal participatory governance
spaces in a programme which focused largely on citizen-state relations, but this
type of citizen engagement constitutes the smallest proportion of our cases.
This is particularly surprising since many of the cases in our sample emerged
from contexts in which reformed legal frameworks have facilitated new formal
mechanisms for citizen-state interaction and participatory governance, such as
participatory budgeting in Brazil and Argentina, municipal health councils in Brazil,
panchayati raj institutions and local development programmes in India, and various
participatory development programmes in South Africa. Of these types of formal
participatory governance spaces, more than two-thirds occurred in middle-income
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
47
Southern countries with emerging democracies. In addition, there were examples
from established Northern democracies, such as new innovations in public
deliberation in Canada, and government-supported schemes for community
participation in the UK. There were also a small minority from very weak
democratic contexts, such as health councils in Bangladesh. Much of the early
work of the Citizenship DRC focused on such formal processes of participatory
governance, and pointed out both their potential weaknesses and the critical
importance of complementing them with other strategies of mobilisation.
Participation without local collective action to build citizenship and maintain
political pressure from the outside was often very weak (Cornwall and Schattan
Coelho 2007; Gaventa and McGee 2010).
Meanwhile, other Citizenship DRC work focused on the importance of local
associations, as seen for example in local membership groups in Bangladesh,
rural associations in Angola, grassroots community organisations in Kenya and
neighbourhood groups in Brazil. While the links between associationalism and
democracy have long been highlighted in the case of Western democracies
(Putnam 2001; de Tocqueville 2002; Warren 2001), relatively little attention has
been paid to the role of local associations for building democracy in poorer
countries of the South.12 Case studies showed that not all local associations
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
48
Figure 6.1 Distribution of types of citizen engagement across case
studies
12 An important exception is the work of Houtzager et al. (2003) on associationalism in Brazil.
Multiple
23% Local
associations
29%
Social
movements and
campaigns
29%
Formal
participatory
governance
spaces
19%
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
49
studied were ‘virtuous’, as work on youth associations, gangs and militias in Nigeria,
Jamaica and Brazil revealed. In contrast to the cases of formal participatory
governance, which were largely reflected in more stable Southern democracies,
some 73 per cent of the cases focusing on associations were found in the least
democratic settings. Our research suggests that the importance of local
associations as a tool for building citizenship and gaining government
responsiveness in these countries is a factor which deserves far more attention.
Another set of studies focused largely on social movements, or orchestrated
campaigns which sought to claim rights or challenge policies through mobilisation
beyond single communities, through a variety of forms of public action including
protests, advocacy and lobbying. These include, for instance, movements for the
right to information or against displacement in India, around HIV/AIDS in South
Africa, for land reform in the Philippines, on environmental issues in Brazil and on
indigenous and ethnic rights in Nigeria and Brazil, amongst others. As our findings
show below, social movements can play a very important role in contributing to
democratic and developmental outcomes and can be make very effective
contributions to creating more responsive states. Their contribution to increasing
state accountability has tended to be underplayed in donor agendas on good
governance and democracy promotion.
Turning first to the relationship between different types of citizen engagement and
positive outcomes, we show in Table 6.1 the contribution each type of engagement
has made to each of our four outcome categories. Associational activity accounts
for between 43 and 49 per cent of positive outcomes within each category. Put
another way, associations in our sample contribute more strongly to each of the
outcome areas compared with other forms of engagement. This is not merely an
effect produced by an over-representation of associations in our sample, since
associations and social movements comprise an equal proportion of cases (see
Figure 6.1).
Table 6.1 Distribution of types of citizen engagement across
categories of positive outcomes
Positive outcomes
(n=620)
Types of Construction of Practices of Responsive and Inclusive and
citizen citizenship citizen accountable cohesive
engagement (n=215) participation states societies
(n=159) (n=194) (n=52)
Local associations 49% 48% 43% 48%
Social movements 27% 25% 28% 25%
and campaigns
Formal participatory 13% 16% 11% 19%
governance spaces
Multiple 11% 11% 18% 8%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
We also examined how positive outcomes were distributed across each type of
engagement. As can be seen in Table 6.2, there is a pattern similar to the overall
distribution of outcomes, with roughly similar proportions for our first three outcome
categories, and a smaller proportion for the social inclusion and cohesion category.
We do see that the construction of citizenship appears to be a fairly strong outcome
of citizen engagements through associations, social movements and formal
participatory governance spaces, although social movements also produce
particularly strong effects for the construction of accountable and responsive
governance.
Table 6.2 Distribution of positive outcomes across types of citizen
engagement
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
50
Types of citizen engagement
(n=100)
Positive outcomes Local Social Formal Multiple
sorted by associations movements participatory (n=23)
outcome categories (n=29) and campaigns governance spaces
(n=29) (n=19)
Construction of 36% 35% 33% 29%
citizenship
Practices of citizen 26% 24% 30% 22%
participation
Responsive and 29% 33% 25% 44%
accountable states
Inclusive and 9% 8% 12% 5%
cohesive societies
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Perhaps what is most striking in Table 6.2 is that 44 per cent of the outcomes
produced by multiple strategies were concentrated in the accountable and responsive
governance category. This finding resonates with qualitative insights from our cases,
which suggest that it is not simply engagement in associations or participatory
spaces which contribute to state responsiveness, but rather therelationships
between those strategies and broader social mobilisation. For instance, the findings
from municipal health councils in Brazil demonstrate that health outcomes can be
strengthened when there is civil society mobilisation outside the participatory
governance space in addition to political will on the inside (Coelho 2010). Similarly,
the cases from Citizen Action and National Policy Change show that successful
change occurred through broad coalitions using an array of strategies, not through
a single set of actors or actions alone (Gaventa and McGee 2010).
The above analysis suggests that while people may engage with the state in a
variety of ways, associations and social movements are far more important
vehicles for gaining development and democratic outcomes than perhaps has been
previously understood. This is at odds with the recent focus in some donor circles
on supporting institutionalised fora for participatory governance. Furthermore, in
order to gain responsive and accountable governance, our findings point to the
importance of multiple strategies of engagement.
These variations also look at the negative outcomes linked to difference strategies
of engagement. As we saw in Figure 5.1, while 75 per cent of almost 830 outcomes
from our sample were positive, 25 per cent were labelled negative. However, if we
look at the differences in positive or negative outcomes by strategy, shown in
Table 6.3, we begin to see some variations which shed light on the interaction of
contextual variables and negative outcomes. For the outcomes linked to
associations, 90 per cent of the outcomes reported were positive and only 10 per
cent negative – a much higher positive-negative ratio than in the sample as
whole. On the other hand, roughly 45 per cent of outcomes from engagement in
formal participatory governance spaces were found to be negative, and 29 per
cent of those linked to social movements – higher percentages than in the overall
sample.
Table 6.3 Distribution of positive and negative outcomes across
type of citizen engagement
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
51
Outcomes sorted by type of citizen engagement
(n=828)
Local Social Formal Multiple
Outcome associations movements participatory (n=118)
type (n=324) and campaigns governance spaces
(n=233) (n=153)
Positive 90% 71% 55% 68%
Negative 10% 29% 45% 32%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Type of citizen Positive Negative
engagement (n=620) (n=208)
Local associations 47% 16%
Social movements and campaigns 27% 33%
Formal participatory governance spaces 13% 33%
Multiple 13% 18%
Total 100% 100%
Viewed as a percentage of outcomes within each positive or negative category,
rather than across type of engagement, the story is even stronger. As Table 6.4
shows, while associations and social movements both accounted for the same
proportion of the cases studied, associations account for a higher proportion of
the positive outcomes (47 per cent), while participatory governance spaces and
social movements accounted for higher proportions of the negative outcomes
(33 per cent each).
Table 6.4 Distribution of types of citizen engagement across positive
and negative outcomes
This pattern is consistent with the case study findings, which show that social
movements, while often linked to larger scale institutional change, may also be
contentious and face serious backlash and reprisals. Participation in formal
governance spaces, especially where not backed by collective action, may be
linked to a sense of tokenism, or relatively empty forms of participation, which may
not contribute by themselves to positive change. Even the multiple forms of
engagement, which earlier we said are most responsible for change accountability
and responsiveness outcomes, also have a relatively high level (32 per cent) of
negative outcomes.
6.2 How does political context effect outcome?
How do outcomes and strategies for obtaining them vary across political context?
While most previous studies on the effectiveness of citizen participation have
pointed to the importance of country context for outcomes, there tends to be little
elaboration on the interaction between context, types of engagement and outcomes
(Rocha Menocal and Sharma 2008). The relationship between these three
variables is particularly important in order for donor agencies to avoid supporting
participatory initiatives that could produce negative outcomes. The impact of (and
donor expectations for) various participatory strategies in less stable, fragile states
deserves particular attention.
With the Citizenship DRC’s focus on the nature and possibilities of citizen
engagement, we might expect that contextual differences related to democratic
openness would be critical to our results. For example, it would seem likely that the
freedoms of association and opportunities for participation within the public sphere
will affect how citizen action occurs. We might also expect that in weak democracies,
with little experience of positive engagements between citizen and state and shorter
histories of democratic participation, the most frequent outcomes might be related
to the construction of citizenship and the practice of participation. On the other hand,
settings with longer histories of democratic participation might be expected to be the
context for systemic institutional gains related to accountability and responsiveness.
In order to explore these assumptions, we looked at a variety of existing approaches
to categorising the nature of the political regime for the 20 countries in our sample.13
We reviewed three of the most frequently cited indices on political regime types, the
Polity IV Project, the annual Freedom House survey and the Economist Intelligence
Unit’s Index of Democracy. Each of these is concerned with the characteristics and
democratic quality of political regimes, although their indicators and measurements
differ.14 Based on the way our case study countries clustered across these three
indices, we classified them according to three tiers of democratic strength:
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
52
13 Cross-national case studies are not included in this discussion of country context. As a result, in the
rest of this section our results refer to a sub-sample of 83 cases situated in single countries only.
14 This approach builds on that of Coelho and von Lieres (2010) which examines differences in strategies
and outcomes across seven developing countries. Polity IV Project data measure the nature of political
decision-making and regime transitions within countries; Freedom House survey measures the quality
of political rights and civil liberties within countries; and the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of
Democracy assesses quality of governance, political participation and political culture.
Tier One: Canada, Chile, New Zealand, UK, USA.
Tier Two: Argentina, Brazil, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Philippines, South Africa
Tier Three: Angola, Bangladesh, the Gambia, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria,
Turkey and Zimbabwe.
Of our sub-sample of 83 single-country case studies, 50 are set in Tier Two
countries. These are mostly middle-income democracies in the South, and have
generally had longer periods of democratic stability compared to Tier Three
countries. Twenty-four of the cases in this sub-sample are in weaker, Tier Three
democracies, some of which are considered fragile states on various international
indices (Marshall et al. 2009; World Bank 2010).15 The remaining nine cases
occur in Tier One countries, the majority of which are rich, Northern countries.
One question we sought to explore was whether countries classified as having
stronger democratic institutions were more likely to be associated with positive
outcomes of participation than those with weaker democratic institutions. The
distribution of positive and negative outcomes by political context is shown in
Figure 6.2. The highest proportion of positive outcomes come from the most and
least democratic settings – over 85 per cent in Tiers One and Three, compared to
the overall average of 75 per cent. The lowest proportion of positive outcomes
comes from the Tier Two countries, where more than 34 per cent of the outcomes
reported are negative, compared to the overall average of 25 per cent. This
finding begins to question the idea that positive outcomes of engagement are
linked linearly to the level of democratisation in a given setting.
Figure 6.2 Distribution of positive and negative outcomes across
country types
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
53
15 Marshall et al. (2009) list Angola, Nigeria and Zimbabwe as being in the two most fragile (of six) state
categories in their 2008 state fragility data for Polity IV. The World Bank (2010) harmonised list of
‘fragile situations’ includes Angola, the Gambia and Zimbabwe. Others, such as Kenya, Bangladesh
and Nigeria, are sometimes categorised in this way.
G
G
G
Our initial expectations about distribution of outcomes by regime type also did not
hold. As Table 6.5 shows, the proportion of outcomes in each of the four categories
varies very little by political context. This is a very important finding, as it implies
that even in so-called strong democracies (Tier One), the basic democratic process
of developing informed and active citizens is an ongoing task. Conversely, in the
emerging democracies of Tier Two, the most common positive outcomes are related
to the construction of accountable and responsive forms of governance, suggesting
that it is not as if the state must first become strong, and then citizen engagement
will follow. On the other hand, the highest incidence of positive outcomes related
to social inclusion and cohesion are in the weakest and most fragile democracies,
many of which are characterised by recent histories of conflict or violence.
Table 6.5 Distribution of positive outcomes across country type
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
54
These findings begin to suggest that we cannot consider participation ‘success’
and ‘level of democratisation’ to be linked in a linear or progressive manner.
Neither should we assume that citizen engagement will be more likely to increase
state responsiveness and accountability in stronger democratic states than in less
democratic states. Rather, based on these findings, engagement can make
positive differences, even in the least democratic settings – a proposition that
challenges the conventional wisdom of an institution- and state-oriented approach
that relegates opportunities for citizens to engage in a variety of participatory
strategies to a more ‘mature’ democratic phase. In fact, one could propose the
counter-argument: it may be in those countries where there have been fewest
opportunities for engagement that the most difference can be made.
While the distribution of outcomes across our four categories does not vary
enormously by political context, the strategies used to attain these outcomes do.
Table 6.6 shows the distribution of strategies for each regime type. In Tier Three
countries more than two-thirds of cases of citizen engagement took place through
local associations, contrasting with an average of 29 per cent for our overall
sub-sample. Perhaps this is not a surprising finding, considering the potential
barriers to generating social movements or engaging in formal participatory
governance spaces in these weaker democratic states. Tier Two countries
demonstrate a more evenly distributed range of mobilisation types, with ‘social
movements’ predominating at 38 per cent and both ‘participatory spaces’ and
‘multiple’ counting each for around one-quarter of the total mobilisation types
within this tier. In Tier One countries, the most common forms of engagement
Positive outcomes sorted by country type
Outcome categories Tier One Tier Two Tier Three
(n=37) (n=214) (n=273)
Construction of citizenship 32% 31% 35%
Practice of citizen participation 30% 25% 24%
Responsive and accountable states 32% 36% 31%
Inclusive and cohesive societies 6% 8% 10%
Total 100% 100% 100%
were social movements and formal participatory governance spaces, each
representing a little less than half of the cases.
Table 6.6 Distribution of types of citizen engagement across country
tiers
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
55
Types of citizen Tier One Tier Two Tier Three
engagement (n=9) (n=50) (n=24)
Local associations 0% 12% 67%
Social movements and campaigns 44% 38% 8%
Formal participatory governance spaces 44% 26% 8%
Multiple 12% 24% 17%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Of course, we need to be careful in interpreting these figures. We have warned
earlier about the dangers of broad generalisation; for example, the fact that there
were no associations studied in the sample in the Tier One countries does not of
course mean that they are not present or are not integral to deepening democratic
or developmental outcomes there.
Yet the fact that more than two-thirds of the examples of citizen engagement in the
weakest democratic settings were linked to associations is important, particularly in
conjunction with our findings about the strong effects associations appear to have
across all outcome areas. If we look even closer at the distribution of positive
outcomes by types of engagement for Tier Three countries only (Table 6.7),
between 78 and 92 per cent of each outcome category arose from associational
activity, compared to a range between 40 and 50 per cent in the sample as a
whole . This finding has implications for donors and activists seeking to build
citizenship and governance, who often assume that civil society presence in fragile
settings is very weak or has little potential to be effective.
Table 6.7 Distribution of types of citizen engagement across positive
outcome types, Tier Three countries
Positive outcomes in Tier Three countries
(n=273)
Types of Construction of Practices of Responsive and Inclusive and
citizen citizenship citizen accountable cohesive
engagement (n=96) participation states societies
(n=66) (n=83) (n=28)
Local associations 89% 92% 83% 78%
Social movements 0% 2% 2% 0%
and campaigns
Formal participatory 6% 0% 4% 11%
governance spaces
Multiple 5% 6% 11% 11%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
This review of outcomes by political context and engagement strategy has
suggested some counterintuitive propositions about where and how citizen action
can make a difference. Though not analysed here, the qualitative case studies
also suggest other factors that could affect the outcomes of citizen engagement,
including the quality of representation and mediation involved, the nature of the
issue, and the style of mobilisation used. Further research is needed both to
develop and test the propositions emerging from this paper, as well as to explore
these other factors which help to explain the differential outcomes of engagement.
7 Implications and next steps
The previous sections have reviewed and analysed a sample of the extensive body
of research produced by the Citizenship DRC in order to understand what types of
outcomes result from citizen engagement. From our initial, inductive review, we
developed four broad sets of outcomes, each with several subcomponents. Of
almost 830 outcomes in 100 cases studied, some 75 per cent were positive, in
that they contributed to the construction of citizenship, strengthened practices of
participation, the building of responsive and accountable states, or more inclusive
and cohesive societies (see Figure 5.1).
These findings are important and significant for a number of reasons. First, they
run counter to the arguments that no evidence exists for the claims that citizen
engagement can contribute to developmental or state-building outcomes. Through
systematic review and meta-case study analysis, we argue, we have found
examples which suggest evidence contrary to this claim. While most are
qualitative in nature, they are more than anecdotal – they emerge from grounded,
empirical case studies from multiple sites in 20 countries. Viewed en masse, the
qualitative findings from our sample begin to point to types and patterns of
outcomes that can be expected from citizen engagement based on observable
outcomes, not a normative framework of what outcomes should look like. We
argue that the synthesis of a large sample of qualitative research facilitates a
degree of generalisability that could not be achieved by the weight of a single
research study.
Second, the inductive approach suggests a framework for what types of outcomes
are important. While some approaches to the impact of citizen engagement
attempt to draw a straight line from individual actions or behaviours (e.g. voice or
participation) to policy or developmental outcomes, our evidence suggests that
intermediate outcomes may be equally important – engagement is itself a way of
strengthening a sense of citizenship, and the knowledge and sense of awareness
necessary to achieve it. It can also strengthen the practices and efficacy of
participation, through more effective action, the transfer of skills across issues and
arenas, and the thickening of alliances and networks. In turn, more aware
citizenship, coupled with stronger citizenship practices, can help to contribute to
building responsive states, which deliver services, protect and extend rights, and
foster a culture of accountability. They can also contribute to a broader sense of
inclusion of previously marginalised groups within society and have the potential
to increase social cohesion across groups.
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
56
This rich tapestry of outcomes of engagement contrasts sharply with more
instrumental views, which see citizen engagement only as part of a linear process
of achieving developmental goals. It also speaks to those who wish to quantify or
measure the state of democracy in different countries by looking primarily at
institutional arrangements such as fair elections, the rule of law, and a free and
open media – an approach found in various governance indices and democracy
barometers. Our findings point to a new and complementary standard, based on
the degree to which a democracy fosters a sense of citizenship. An awareness of
rights, knowledge of legal and institutional procedures, disposition towards action,
organising skills and the thickness of civic networks are all indicators which help
to measure the degree to which democratic citizenship is emerging, which in turn
will make a difference in how democratic institutions deliver.
Third, while focusing on the positive outcomes of citizen engagement, the study
also recognises that participation is not always used for positive purposes. It
demonstrates how positive outcomes are often mirrored by parallel negative
outcomes (though these were only 25 per cent of all of the outcomes coded in our
sample). We have seen multiple examples in the text.
Where engagement can contribute to construction of active citizenship, in
other cases it leads to a sense of disempowerment and a reduced sense of
agency, or to new knowledge dependencies, or re-enforced exclusions due to
new forms of awareness.
Where engagement in some instance can contribute to strengthened practices
of participation, at other times participation is perceived as meaningless,
tokenistic, or manipulated. In other instances, it can contribute to new skills
and alliances but these are used for corrupt or non-positive ends, or are
captured by elites, or raise new issues of accountability and representation.
Where sometimes engagement leads to building responsive states and
institutions, other times it faces bureaucratic ‘brick walls’; failures to implement
or sustain policy gains; and in many cases, reprisals, including violence, from
state actors, against those who challenge the status quo.
Where sometimes engagement can contributes to social inclusion and
cohesion, in part by created space for new voices and issues in the public
sphere, at other times in can contribute to a greater sense of exclusion, as
new spaces can reinforce old hierarchies based on gender, caste or race; and
contribute to greater competition and conflict across groups who compete for
the recognition and resources in new ways.
While we cannot ignore these negative outcomes, the fact that the vast majority of
the outcomes in our sample are positive also means that the contribution of citizen
engagements for democracy and development cannot be rejected either.
To contribute further to this new research challenge, in Section Six of this paper,
we turned our attention to examining to what extent differences in outcomes in our
sample were affected by two broad factors – the type of citizen engagement used
and the nature of the political context. Here too, while we need to be very careful
about drawing generalisable conclusions from this type of study, some very
interesting patterns and propositions emerge which confirm our qualitative findings,
while suggesting directions for further study.
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
57
G
G
G
G
As regards these variations across types of citizen engagement, we coded the
case studies into four types: those that were about local associations, social
movements and campaigns, formal participatory governance spaces and those
that employed multiple approaches. In a research programme that was largely
centred on how citizens interact with states, we might have expected participation
through formal participatory governance spaces to be particularly important. In
fact citizen engagement through local associations and social movements
emerged as even more important sources of change, with associations showing
the highest percentage of positive outcomes in each outcome type. Within the
cases that use multiple approaches to change, the outcomes linked to responsive
and accountable states reflected the highest percentage, a finding that is supported
by qualitative evidence showing the importance of strategies that combine different
forms of engagement.
In most cases a range of organisations and actors were involved in the types of
citizen engagement that we studied, including community-based organisations,
NGOs, local activists, sympathetic officials, but also in some cases the media and
the courts. In few of our cases did we examine the role of political parties as
change agents. At the same time, as we have observed, citizen engagement does
not always lead to change, nor to ‘good change’, and when it does, it often
involves more complex journeys and pathways than we have been able in this
initial mapping to capture. From these case studies we learn that change is highly
iterative, rarely linear and often uneven. Throughout the sample are many
examples of gains and reversals, progress and disjunctures, successes and failures.
When we look at outcomes across contexts, we also find some very interesting
patterns and propositions emerging. Using a combination of existing indices of
political regime, we were able to cluster our sample by country according to three
tiers representing degrees of democratic openness and stability. Here to our
surprise, assumptions which tend to link positive democratic and development
outcomes to the level of democratisation in a given country do not hold true.
These patterns are particularly striking when looking at the bottom end of the
scale – at cases in our study which were ranked as the least democratic and
stable. In such cases, there has been a predominant view either that civil society
institutions are not likely to exist or that development interventions must develop
state institutions first, and then focus on the tasks of citizen engagement. In fact,
in our sample we found a very strong presence of associations, in particular, in
these least democratic settings. In turn these associations play very important
roles across each of the outcomes studied – constructing citizenship, improving
practices of participation, strengthening accountability, and contributing to social
cohesion. Contrary to the predominant view, this evidence urges approaches to
strengthening democracy and development in such settings which recognise and
support the role of associations as key actors in the process.
While the type of citizen engagement and the nature of the political regime, as well
as their interaction, play an important role in affecting the positive contributions of
citizen engagement, these also contribute to the where the risks of engagement
might occur. While a common assumption is that citizen engagement can be more
risky in weaker political regimes, as it may raise demands that states cannot
handle, our data did not support this view. Rather, we were struck by the degree
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
58
of state ‘backlash’ – often violent – against increased citizen voice. This held
across all settings, including the higher tiers. It often took the form of political
violence which threatened fundamental human rights, but sometimes also
comprised economic and social reprisals, including the use of access to
development resources – land, housing, jobs – as political clubs to maintain the
status quo.
While we need to be very careful about the statistical significance of these findings,
they do begin to suggest, at least based on our case studies, that we cannot
consider participation ‘success’ and ‘level of democratisation’ to be linked in a
linear or progressive manner, nor that citizen engagement will be more likely to
lead to government response in more democratic than in less democratic states.
Rather, they tell us that engagement can make positive differences, even in the
least democratic settings – a proposition that again challenges those who would
argue for building states or institutions in these settings first and leaving the
support of citizen engagement until later.
There are of course a number of implications from these findings for activists and
policy- makers as well as for donors and development agencies seeking to foster
positive developmental and democratic outcomes through citizen engagements.
Six of these are very important.
1. Citizen engagement can be linked positively in a number of instances to
achieving both development outcomes – such as those linked to health,
water, sanitation and education – and democratic outcomes linked to building
accountable institutions and making real national and international human
rights frameworks.
2. However, active and effective citizens who can help deliver these
development and democratic gains do not emerge automatically. As with the
process of building states and institutions, other intermediary measures of
change are also very important.
3. While ‘good change’ can happen through citizen engagement, there are also
risks. Careful attention must be paid to the quality and direction of change,
as well as to its incidence. Positive outcomes of citizen engagement can be
mirrored by their opposite.
4. Change happens through multiple types of citizen engagement: not only
through formal governance processes, even participatory ones, but also
through associations and social movements that are not created by the state.
Strengthening these broader social change processes, and their interactions,
can in turn create opportunities for state reformers to respond to demands,
build external alliances and contribute to state responsiveness.
5. Citizen engagement – especially when citizens are challenging powerful
interests in the status quo – gives rise to the risk of reprisals, which can
range from state and political violence, to economic and social forms of
recrimination against those who speak out. Donors and policy-makers alike
can play an important role in protecting and strengthening spaces for citizens
to exercise their voice, and can support the enabling conditions for citizen
engagement to occur. In particular, they can promote the value of broad
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
59
social movements for both democracy and development, support champions
of engagement within the state, and monitor state reprisals against increased
citizen voice.
6. For those donors and development actors working in fragile and weak
settings, the research points to the need to recognise early the role which
local associations and other citizen activities can play in the strengthening of
cultures of citizenship, which in turn can contribute to building responsive
states. Citizen-based strategies can be as important in these settings as
those found in stronger democracies.
Finally, on a more general note, this study has argued that outcomes matter, but
they can be understood through a variety of approaches. As we have illustrated,
systematic reviews of qualitative data over multiple cases and contexts can be as
important and insightful as quantitative and controlled evidence-building in a small
number of settings. With different approaches and methods, we hope that new
understanding has also emerged.
We also believe that it is time to move the debate to a new set of questions. After
more than two decades of support in international development for greater citizen
participation, the issue is not simply to ask ‘what difference does it make?’ but to
understand further the conditions under which it makes a positive difference.
Rather than simply measure the contribution of engagement to development and
democracy, we must focus also on the quality and direction of the differences
which are made, and how they are attained. Answers to these questions should
occupy researchers for many years to come.
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
60
Annexe 1 Case studies included in
the sample
Abah, O.S. and Okwori, J.Z. (2006) ‘Oil and Accountability Issues in the Niger
Delta’, in P. Newell and J. Wheeler. (eds), Rights, Resources and the Politics of
Accountability, London and New York: Zed
—— (2005) ‘A Nation in Search of Citizens: Problems of Citizenship in the
Nigerian Context’, in N. Kabeer (ed), Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings and
Expressions, London and New York: Zed
Alonso, A. (2010) ‘Hybrid Activism: Paths of Globalization in the Brazilian
Environmental Movement’, in J. Gaventa and R. Tandon (eds), Globalizing
Citizens: New Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion, London and New York: Zed
—— (2009) Hybrid Activism: Paths of Globalisation in the Brazilian Environmental
Movement, IDS Working Paper 332, Brighton: IDS
Alonso, A. and Costa, V. (2005) ‘Environmental Perception and Political
Mobilization in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo: A Comparative Analysis’, in M.
Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds), Science and Citizens: Globalization and
the Challenge of Engagement. London and New York: Zed
Alonso, A.; Costa, V. and Maciel, D. (2010) ‘Environmental Activism in Brazil: The
Rise of a Social Movement’, in L. Thompson and C. Tapscott (eds), Citizenship and
Social Movements: Perspectives from the Global South, London and New York: Zed
—— (2005) The Formation of the Brazilian Environmental Movement, IDS
Working Paper 259, Brighton: IDS
Ansley, F. (2005) ‘Constructing Citizenship without a License: The Struggle of
Undocumented Immigrants in the USA for Livelihoods and Recognition’, in N. Kabeer
(ed.), Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings and Expressions, London and New York: Zed
Avritzer, L. (2010) ‘Democratizing Urban Policy in Brazil: Participation and the
Right to the City’, in J. Gaventa and R. McGee (eds), Winning Change: Citizen
Activism and National Policy, London and New York: Zed
Barnes, M. (2007) ‘Whose Spaces? Contestations and Negotiations in Health and
Community Regeneration Forums in England’, in A. Cornwall and V. Schattan
Coelho (eds), Spaces for Change? The Politics of Participation in New Democratic
Arenas, London and New York: Zed
Baviskar, A. (2010) ‘Winning the Right to Information in India: Is Knowledge
Power?’, in J. Gaventa and R. McGee (eds), Winning Change: Citizen Activism
and National Policy, London and New York: Zed
Borras Jr., S.M. and Franco, J.C. (2010) ‘Campaigns for Land and Citizenship
Rights: The Dynamics of Transnational Agrarian Movements’, in J. Gaventa and
R. Tandon (eds), Globalising Citizens: New Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion,
London and New York: Zed
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
61
—— (2010) ‘Redistributing Land in the Philippines: Social Movements and State
Reforms’, in J. Gaventa and R. McGee (eds), Winning Change: Citizen Activism
and National Policy, London and New York: Zed
—— (2009) Transnational Agrarian Movements: Struggling for Land and
Citizenship Rights, IDS Working Paper 323, Brighton: IDS
Cassidy, R. and Leach, M. (2010) ‘Mediated Health Citizenships: Living with HIV
and Engaging with the Global Fund in the Gambia’, in J. Gaventa and R. Tandon
(eds), Globalizing Citizens: New Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion, London
and New York: Zed
—— (2009) AIDS, Citizenship and Global Funding: A Gambian Case Study, IDS
Working Paper 325, Brighton: IDS
Chilvers, J. (2005) ‘Democratizing Science in the UK: The Case of Radioactive
Waste Management’, in M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds), Science and
Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, London and New York:
Zed
Coelho, V. (2007) ‘Brazilian Health Councils: Including the Excluded?’, in A.
Cornwall and V. Schattan Coelho (eds), Spaces for Change? The Politics of
Participation in New Democratic Arenas, London and New York: Zed
Coelho, V. and Favareto, A. (2010) ‘Participation, Inclusion and Development
under Conditions of Social Mobilization’, in L. Thompson and C. Tapscott (eds),
Citizenship and Social Movements: Perspectives from the Global South, London
and New York: Zed
Coelho, V.; Ferraz, A.; Fanti, F. and Ribeiro, M. (2010) ‘Mobilization and
Participation: A Win-Win Game?’, in V. Schattan Coelho and B. von Lieres (eds),
Mobilising for Democracy: Citizen Action and the Politics of Public Participation,
London and New York: Zed
Cornwall, A. (2007) ‘Democratising the Governance of Health Services: The Case
of Cabo de Santo Agostinho, Brazil’, in A. Cornwall and V. Schattan Coelho (eds),
Spaces for Change? The Politics of Participation in New Democratic Arenas,
London and New York: Zed
Cornwall, A.; Cordeiro, S. and Delgado, N.G. (2006) ‘Rights to Health and
Struggles for Accountability in a Brazilian Municipal Health Council’, in P. Newell
and J. Wheeler (eds), Rights, Resources and the Politics of Accountability,
London and New York: Zed
Cortez Ruiz, C. (2010) ‘The Struggle towards Rights and Communitarian
Citizenship: The Zapatista Movement in Mexico’, in L. Thompson and C. Tapscott
(eds), Citizenship and Social Movements: Perspectives from the Global South,
London and New York: Zed
—— (2005) ‘Rights and Citizenship of Indigenous Women in Chiapas: A History of
Struggles, Fears and Hopes’, in N. Kabeer (ed.), Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings
and Expressions, London and New York: Zed
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
62
Cortez Ruiz, C. and Paré, L. (2006) ‘Conflicting Rights, Environmental Agendas
and the Challenges of Accountability: Social Mobilisation and Protected Natural
Areas in Mexico’, in P. Newell and J. Wheeler (eds), Rights, Resources and the
Politics of Accountability, London and New York: Zed
Favareto, A.; Galvanese, C.; Menino, F.; Coelho, V. and Kawamura, Y. (2010)
‘How Styles of Activism Influence Social Participation and Democratic
Deliberation’, in V. Schattan Coelho and B. von Lieres (eds), Mobilising for
Democracy: Citizen Action and the Politics of Public Participation, London and
New York: Zed
Ferreira, I. and Roque, S. (2010) ‘The Nucleo Representativo das Associações
(NRA) do Dombe Grande: Building Democracy and Citizenship at the Local
Level’, in V. Schattan Coelho and B. von Lieres (eds), Mobilising for Democracy:
Citizen Action and the Politics of Public Participation, London and New York:
Zed
Friedman, S. (2010) ‘Gaining Comprehensive AIDS Treatment in South Africa:
The Extraordinary “Ordinary”’, in J. Gaventa and R. McGee (eds), Citizen Action
and National Policy: Making Change Happen, London and New York: Zed
Fuentes, C. (2010) ‘Protecting the Child in Chile: Civil Society and the State’, in
J. Gaventa and R. McGee (eds), Citizen Action and National Policy: Making
Change Happen, London and New York: Zed
Gaventa, J. and Mayo, M. (2010) ‘Spanning Citizenship Spaces through
Transnational Coalitions: The Case of the Global Campaign for Education’, in
J. Gaventa and R. Tandon (eds), Globalizing Citizens: New Dynamics of Inclusion
and Exclusion, London and New York: Zed
—— (2009) Spanning Citizenship Spaces through Transnational Coalitions: The
Case of the Global Campaign for Education, IDS Working Paper 327, Brighton:
IDS
Genus, A. and Rogers-Hayden, T. (2005) ‘Genetic Engineering in Aotearoa, New
Zealand: A Case of Opening up or Closing down Debate?’, in M. Leach, I. Scoones
and B. Wynne (eds), Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of
Engagement, London and New York: Zed
Gurza Lavalle, A.; Castello, G. and Mirandola Bichir, R. (2008) The Backstage of
Civil Society: Protagonisms, Networks and Affinities between Civil Organisations
in São Paulo, IDS Working Paper 299, Brighton: IDS
Hossain, N. (2009) Rude Accountability in the Unreformed State: Informal
Pressures on Frontline Bureaucrats in Bangladesh, IDS Working Paper 319,
Brighton: IDS
Houtzager, P.; Acharya, A. and Gurza Lavalle, A. (2007) Associations and the
Exercise of Citizenship in New Democracies: Evidence from São Paulo and
Mexico City, IDS Working Paper 285, Brighton: IDS
—— (2003) Who Participates? Civil Society and the New Democratic Politics in
São Paulo, Brazil, IDS Working Paper 210, Brighton: IDS
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
63
Huq, S.P. (2005) ‘Bodies as Sites of Struggle: Naripokkho and the Movement for
Women’s Rights in Bangladesh’, in N. Kabeer (ed), Inclusive Citizenship:
Meanings and Expressions. London and New York: Zed
Ibrahim, J. and Egwu, S. (2010) ‘Citizen Action and the Consolidation of
Democracy in Nigeria: A Study of the 2007 Movement’, in V. Schattan Coelho and
B. von Lieres (eds), Mobilising for Democracy: Citizen Action and the Politics of
Public Participation, London and New York: Zed
Icaza, R.; Newell, P. and Saguier, M. (2010) ‘Citizenship and Trade Governance
in the America’, in J. Gaventa and R. Tandon (eds) Globalizing Citizens: New
Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion, London and New York: Zed
—— (2009) Democratising Trade Politics in the Americas: Insights from the Women’s
Environmental and Labour Movements, IDS Working Paper 328, Brighton: IDS
Ilkkaracan, P. (2010) ‘Re/forming Laws to Secure Women’s Rights in Turkey: The
Campaign on the Penal Code’, in J. Gaventa and R. McGee (eds), Citizen Action
and National Policy: Making Change Happen, London and New York: Zed
Kabeer, N. (2005) ‘“Growing” Citizenship from the Grassroots: Nijera Kori and
Social Mobilization in Bangladesh’, in N. Kabeer (ed.), Inclusive Citizenship:
Meanings and Expressions, London and New York: Zed
—— (2003) Making Rights Work for the Poor: Nijera Kori and the Construction of
‘Collective Capabilities’ in Rural Bangladesh, IDS Working Paper 200, Brighton: IDS
Kabeer, N. and Haq Kabir, A. (2009) Citizenship Narratives in the Absence of
Good Governance: Voices of the Working Poor in Bangladesh, IDS Working
Paper 331, Brighton: IDS
Kabeer, N.; with Haq Kabir, A. and Huq, T.Y. (2009) Quantifying the Impact of
Social Mobilisation in Rural Bangladesh: Donors, Civil Society and ‘the Road not
Taken’, IDS Working Paper 333, Brighton: IDS
Kabeer, N. and Mahmud, S. (2010) ‘Microfinance and Social Mobilisation:
Alternative Pathways to Grassroots Democracy?’, in V. Schattan Coelho and
B. von Lieres (eds), Mobilising for Democracy: Citizen Action and the Politics of
Public Participation, London and New York: Zed
Layton, M.D.; Campillo Carrete, B.; Ablanedo Terrazas, I. and Sánchez
Rodríguez, A.M. (2010) ‘Reducing Maternal Mortality in Mexico: Building Vertical
Alliances for Change’, in J. Gaventa and R. McGee (eds), Winning Change:
Citizen Activism and National Policy, London and New York: Zed
Leach, M. (2005) MMR Mobilisation: Citizens and Science in a British Vaccine
Controversy, IDS Working Paper 247, Brighton: IDS
Leach, M. and Scoones, I. (2007) Mobilising Citizens: Social Movements and the
Politics of Knowledge, IDS Working Paper 276, Brighton: IDS
Lekhi, R. and Newell, P. (2006) ‘Environmental Injustice, Law and Accountability’,
in P. Newell and J. Wheeler (eds), Rights, Resources and the Politics of
Accountability, London and New York: Zed
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
64
Luce, S. (2006) ‘Accountability Begins at Home: The Living Wage Movement in
the United States’, in P. Newell and J. Wheeler (eds), Rights, Resources and the
Politics of Accountability, London and New York: Zed
Mahmud, S. (2010) ‘Why Do Garment Workers in Bangladesh Fail to Mobilize?’,
in L. Thompson and C. Tapscott (eds), Citizenship and Social Movements:
Perspectives from the Global South, London and New York: Zed
—— (2007) ‘Spaces for Participation in Health Systems in Rural Bangladesh: The
Experience of Stakeholder Community Groups’, in A. Cornwall and V. Schattan
Coelho (eds), Spaces for Change? The Politics of Participation in New Democratic
Arenas, London and New York: Zed
——(2006) ‘Compliance versus Accountability: Struggles for Dignity and Daily
Bread in the Bangladesh Garment Industry’, in P. Newell and J. Wheeler (eds),
Rights, Resources and the Politics of Accountability, London and New York: Zed
Mehta, L. (2005) Unpacking Rights and Wrongs: Do Human Rights Make a
Difference? The Case of Water Rights in India and South Africa, IDS Working
Paper 260, Brighton: IDS
Mehta, L. and Napier-Moore, R. (2010) ‘Caught between National and Global
Jurisdictions: Displaced People’s Struggle for Rights’, in J. Gaventa and
R. Tandon (eds), Globalizing Citizens: New Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion,
London and New York: Zed
Mehta, L.; Thompson, L. and Nleya, N. (2010) ‘Claiming Water Rights in India and
South Africa’, in L. Thompson and C. Tapscott (eds), Citizenship and Social
Movements: Perspectives from the Global South, London and New York: Zed
Mohanty, R. (2010) ‘Contesting Development, Reinventing Democracy:
Grassroots Social Movements in India’, in L. Thompson and C. Tapscott (eds),
Citizenship and Social Movements: Perspectives from the Global South, London
and New York: Zed
—— (2010) ‘The Infinite Agenda of Social Justice: Dalit Mobilization in Indian
Institutions of Local Governance’, in V. Schattan Coelho and B. von Lieres (eds),
Mobilising for Democracy: Citizen Action and the Politics of Public Participation,
London and New York: Zed
—— (2007) ‘Gendered Subjects, the State and Participatory Spaces: The Politics
of Domesticating Participation in Rural India’, in A. Cornwall and V. Schattan
Coelho (eds), Spaces for Change? The Politics of Participation in New Democratic
Arenas, London and New York: Zed
Moncrieffe, J. (2008) Making and Unmaking the Young ‘Shotta’ [Shooter]:
Boundaries and (Counter)-Actions in the ‘Garrisons’, IDS Working Paper 297,
Brighton: IDS
Murlidhar, V. (2005) ‘Demystifying Occupational and Environmental Health:
Experiences from India’, in M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds), Science
and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, London and New
York: Zed
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
65
Newell, P.; Anand, V.; Arjjumend, H.; Jaitli, H.; Kumar, S. and Ranga Rao,
A. (2006) ‘Corporate Accountability and Citizen Action: Cases from India’, in
P. Newell and J. Wheeler (eds), Rights, Resources and the Politics of
Accountability, London and New York: Zed
Nyamu-Musembi, C. (2010) ‘Have Civil Society Organizations’ Political
Empowerment Programs at the Grassroots Level Contributed to Deepening of
Democracy in Kenya?’ in V. Schattan Coelho and B. von Lieres (eds), Mobilising
for Democracy: Citizen Action and the Politics of Public Participation, London and
New York: Zed
—— (2006) ‘From Protest to Proactive Action: Building Institutional Accountability
through Struggles for the Right to Housing’, in P. Newell and J. Wheeler (eds),
Rights, Resources and the Politics of Accountability, London and New York: Zed
Okello, D. (2010) ‘The Dynamics of Political Change and Transition: Civil Society,
Governance and the Culture of Politics in Kenya’, in V. Schattan Coelho and B.
von Lieres (eds), Mobilising for Democracy: Citizen Action and the Politics of
Public Participation, London and New York: Zed
Osaghae, E.E. (2010) ‘Social Movements and Rights Claims: The Case of Action
Groups in the Niger Delta’, in L. Thompson and C. Tapscott (eds), Citizenship and
Social Movements: Perspectives from the Global South, London and New York: Zed
Pant, M. (2005) ‘The Quest for Inclusion: Nomadic Communities and Citizenship
Questions in Rajasthan’, in N. Kabeer (ed.), Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings and
Expressions, London and New York: Zed
Paré, L. and Robles, C. (2006) ‘Managing Watersheds and the Right to Water:
Indigenous Communities in Search of Accountability and Inclusion in Southern
Veracruz’, in P. Newell and J. Wheeler (eds), Rights, Resources and the Politics
of Accountability, London and New York: Zed
Pearce, J. (2007) Violence, Power and Participation: Building Citizenship in
Contexts of Chronic Violence, IDS Working Paper 274, Brighton: IDS
Piper, L. and Nadvi, L. (2010) ‘Popular Mobilisation, Party Dominance and
Participatory Governance in South Africa’, in L. Thompson and C. Tapscott (eds),
Citizenship and Social Movements: Perspectives from the Global South, London
and New York: Zed
Pittman, A. and Naciri, R. (2010) ‘Winning Women’s Rights in Morocco: Cultural
Adaptations and Islamic Family Law’, in J. Gaventa and R. McGee (eds), Citizen
Action and National Policy: Making Change Happen, London and New York: Zed
Robins, S. (2010) ‘“How Deep is “Deep Democracy”? Global Citizenship in Local
Spaces’, in V. Schattan Coelho and B. von Lieres (eds), Mobilising for Democracy:
Citizen Action and the Politics of Public Participation, London and New York: Zed
—— (2010) ‘Mobilising and Mediating Global Medicine in Health Citizenship: The
Politics of AIDS Knowledge Production in Rural South Africa’, in J. Gaventa and
R. Tandon (eds), Globalizing Citizens: New Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion,
London and New York: Zed
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
66
—— (2009) Mobilising and Mediating Global Medicine and Health Citizenship:
The Politics of AIDS Knowledge Production in Rural South Africa, IDS Working
Paper 324, Brighton: IDS
—— (2005a) ‘AIDS, Science and Citizenship after Apartheid’, in M. Leach,
I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds), Science and Citizens: Globalization and the
Challenge of Engagement, London and New York: Zed
—— (2005b) From ‘Medical Miracles’ to Normal(ised) Medicine: AIDS Treatment,
Activism and Citizenship in the UK and South Africa, IDS Working Paper 252,
Brighton: IDS
—— (2005c) Rights Passages from ‘Near Death’ to ‘New Life’: AIDS Activism
and Treatment Testimonies in South Africa, IDS Working Paper 251, Brighton:
IDS
Rodgers, D. (2007) ‘Subverting the Spaces of Invitation? Local Politics and
Participatory Budgeting in Post-crisis Buenos Aires’, in A. Cornwall and
V. Schattan Coelho (eds), Spaces for Change? The Politics of Participation in
New Democratic Arenas, London and New York: Zed
Roque, S. and Shankland, A. (2007) ‘Participation, Mutation and Political
Transition: New Democratic Spaces in Peri-urban Angola’, in A. Cornwall and
V. Schattan Coelho (eds), Spaces for Change? The Politics of Participation in
New Democratic Arenas, London and New York: Zed
Rusike, E. (2005) ‘Exploring Food and Farming Futures in Zimbabwe: A Citizens’
Jury and Scenario Workshop Experiment’, in M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne
(eds), Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement,
London and New York: Zed
Scoones, I. (2010) ‘The Politics of Global Assessments: The Case of the
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for
Development (IAASTD)’, in J. Gaventa and R. Tandon (eds), Globalizing
Citizens: New Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion, London and New York: Zed
—— (2008) Global Engagements with Global Assessments: The Case of the
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for
Development, IDS Working Paper 313, Brighton: IDS
—— (2005) Contentious Politics, Contentious Knowledges: Mobilising against
GM Crops in India, South Africa and Brazil, IDS Working Paper 256, Brighton:
IDS
Shankland, A. (2010) ‘“We Got It into Our Heads that We Should Do the Job of
the State”: The Indigenous Peoples’ Movement, “Forest Citizenship” and
Struggles over Health Services in Acre, Brazil’, in V. Schattan Coelho and B. von
Lieres (eds), Mobilising for Democracy: Citizen Action and the Politics of Public
Participation, London and New York: Zed
Tapscott, C. (2010) ‘Social Mobilisation in Cape Town – A Tale of Two
Communities’, in L. Thompson and C. Tapscott (eds), Citizenship and Social
Movements: Perspectives from the Global South, London and New York: Zed
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
67
Thekkudan, J. (2010) ‘Enhancing Everyday Citizenship Practices: Women’s
Livelihoods and Global Markets’, in J. Gaventa and R. Tandon (eds), Globalizing
Citizens: New Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion, London and New York: Zed
Thekkudan, J. and Tandon, R. (2010) Women’s Livelihoods, Global Markets and
Citizenship, IDS Working Paper 336, Brighton: IDS
Thompson, L. (2010) ‘Mobilisation Strategies and Prospects: Civil Society
Mobilisation on the Building of the Berg Dam, South Africa’, in L. Thompson and
C. Tapscott (eds), Citizenship and Social Movements: Perspectives from the
Global South, London and New York: Zed
—— (2005) Managing Mobilisation? Participatory Processes and Dam Building in
South Africa: the Berg River Project, IDS Working Paper 254, Brighton: IDS
Thompson, L. and Nleya, N. (2010) ‘Passivity or Protest? Understanding the
Dimensions of Mobilization on Rights to Services in Khayelitsha, Cape Town’, in
V. Schattan Coelho and B. von Lieres (eds), Mobilising for Democracy: Citizen
Action and the Politics of Public Participation, London and New York: Zed
von Lieres, B. (2007) ‘Citizen Participation in South Africa: Land Struggles and
HIV/AIDS Activism’, in A. Cornwall and V. Schattan Coelho (eds), Spaces for
Change? The Politics of Participation in New Democratic Arenas, London and
New York: Zed
von Lieres, B. and Kahane, D. (2007) ‘Inclusion and Representation in Democratic
Deliberations: Lessons from Canada’s Romanow Commission’, in A. Cornwall and
V. Schattan Coelho (eds), Spaces for Change? The Politics of Participation in
New Democratic Arenas, London and New York: Zed
Waldman, L. (2010) ‘Mobilization and Political Momentum: Anti-asbestos Struggles
in South Africa and India’, in J. Gaventa and R. Tandon (eds) (2010) Globalizing
Citizens: New Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion, London and New York: Zed
—— (2009) ‘Show Me the Evidence’: Mobilisation, Citizenship and Risk in
Asbestos Issues, IDS Working Paper 329, Brighton: IDS
—— (2005) When Social Movements Bypass the Poor: Asbestos Pollution,
International Litigation and Griqua Cultural Identity, IDS Working Paper 246,
Brighton: IDS
Wheeler, J.S. (2005) ‘Rights without Citizenship? Participation, Family and
Community in Rio de Janeiro’, in N. Kabeer (ed.), Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings
and Expressions, London and New York: Zed
Williams, J.J. (2007) ‘Social Change and Community Participation: The Case of
Health Facilities Boards in the Western Cape of South Africa’, in A. Cornwall and
V. Schattan Coelho (eds), Spaces for Change? The Politics of Participation in
New Democratic Arenas, London and New York: Zed
—— (2005) ‘The Grootboom Case and the Constitutional Right to Housing: The
Politics of Planning in Post-apartheid South Africa’, in N. Kabeer (ed.), Inclusive
Citizenship: Meanings and Expressions, London and New York: Zed
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
68
References
Abraham-Talks, S. (2010) ‘Engaging with the Political: Examining the Interface of
NGOs, ‘Panchayati Raj’ Institutions and Poor People in Two Indian States’, DPhil
thesis, University of Sussex
Baiocchi, G.; Heller, P.; Chaudhuri, S. and Kunrath Silva, M. (2006) ‘Evaluating
Empowerment: Participatory Budgeting in Brazilian Municipalities’, in R. Alsop,
M. Frost Bertelsen and J. Holland (eds), Empowerment in Practice: From
Analysis to Implementation, Washington: World Bank
Banerjee, A.V.; Banerji, R.; Duflo, E.; Glennerster, R. and Khemani, S. (2010)
‘Pitfalls of Participatory Programs: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in
Education in India’, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2.1: 1–30
Björkman, M. and Svensson, J. (2009) ‘Power to the People: Evidence from a
Randomized Field Experiment on Community-based Monitoring in Uganda’,
Quarterly Journal of Economics 124.2: 735–69
Bonfiglioli, A. (2003) Empowering the Poor: Local Governance for Poverty
Reduction, New York: United Nations Capital Development Fund
Booth, A. (2001) ‘Cochrane or Cock-eyed? How Should We Conduct Systematic
Reviews of Qualitative Research?’, conference paper presented at Qualitative
Evidence-Based Practice: Taking a Critical Stance, Coventry University, 14–16 May
Brinkerhoff, D.W. and Azfar, O. (2006) ‘Decentralization and Community
Empowerment: Does Community Empowerment Deepen Democracy and Improve
Service Delivery?’, paper prepared for Office of Democracy and Governance, USAID
Campbell, R.; Pound, P.; Pope, C.; Britten, N.; Pill, R.; Morgan, M. and Donovan,
J. (2003) ‘Evaluating Meta-Ethnography: A Synthesis of Qualitative Research on
Lay Experiences of Diabetes and Diabetes Care’, Social Science and Medicine
56.4: 671–84
Citizenship DRC (2001) ‘Inception Report and Proposal for Future Work to DfID
Development Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability’,
unpublished
Coelho, V. and Favareto, A. (2008) ‘Participatory Governance and Development:
In Search of a Causal Nexus’, conference paper for Research Committee on
Poverty, Social Welfare and Social Policy, International Sociological Association,
Stockholm, 4–6 September
Coelho, V. and von Lieres, B. (eds), (2010) Mobilising for Democracy: Citizen
Action and the Politics of Public Participation, London and New York: Zed
Cooper, H. M. and Hedges, L.V. (eds), (1994) The Handbook of Research
Synthesis, New York: Russell Sage Foundation
Cornwall, A. and Coelho, V. (eds) (2007) Spaces for Change? The Politics of
Citizen Participation in New Democratic Arenas, London and New York: Zed
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
69
Crook, R.C. and Sverrisson, A. (2001) Decentralisation and Poverty Alleviation in
Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis, or, is West Bengal Unique?, IDS
Working Paper 130, Brighton: IDS
Dagnino, E. (2005a) Meanings of Citizenship in Latin America, IDS Working Paper
258, Brighton: IDS
—— (2005b) ‘“We All Have Rights, but…” Contesting Concepts of Citizenship in
Brazil’, in N. Kabeer (ed.), Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings and Expressions,
London and New York: Zed
De Tocqueville, A . (2002) Democracy in America, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press
Edelman, M. (2003) ‘Transnational Peasant and Farmer Movements and
Networks’, in H. Anheier, M. Glasius and M. Kaldor (eds), Global Civil Society
Yearbook, London: London School of Economics
EPPI-Centre (2007) EPPI-Centre Methods for Conducting Systematic Reviews,
London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education,
University of London, http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=89 (accessed
2 October 2009)
Estabrooks, C.A.; Field, P.A. and Morse, J.M. (1994) ‘Aggregating Qualitative Findings:
An Approach to Theory Development’, Qualitative Health Research 4.4: 503–11
Forte, J.A. (1998) ‘Power and Role-taking: A Review of Theory, Research and
Practice’, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 1.4: 27–56
Fung, A. (2003) ‘Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices
and Their Consequences’, Journal of Political Philosophy 11.3: 338–67
Gaventa, J. (2006) ‘Assessing the Social Justice Outcomes of Participatory Local
Governance’, unpublished report for the Local Governance Learning Group, Ford
Foundation
Gaventa, J. and McGee, R. (eds) (2010) Citizen Action and National Policy:
Making Change Happen, London and New York: Zed
Gaventa, J. and Tandon, R. (eds), (2010) Globalizing Citizens: New Dynamics of
Inclusion and Exclusion, London and New York: Zed
Gibson, C. and Woolcock, M. (2008) ‘Empowerment, Deliberative Development and
Local-level Politics in Indonesia: Participatory Projects as a Source of Countervailing
Power’, Studies in Comparative International Development 43.2: 151–80
Goetz, A-M. and Gaventa, J. (2001) From Consultation to Influence: Bringing Citizen
Voice and Client Focus into Service Delivery, IDS Working Paper 138, Brighton: IDS
Golooba-Mutebi, F. (2004) ‘Reassessing Popular Participation in Uganda’, Public
Administration and Development 24.4: 289–304
Hossain, N. (2009) ‘The Local Politics of Public Action: Relationships, Bargains
and the Question of “Impact”’, IDS Bulletin 40.6, Brighton: IDS
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
70
Houtzager, P.P.; Gurza Lavalle, A. and Acharya, A. (2003) Who Participates? Civil
Society and the New Democratic Politics in São Paulo, Brazil, IDS Working Paper
210, Brighton: IDS
IDS (2000a) ‘Citizenship, Participation and Accountability in Policy Processes: A
Proposal for a Development Research Centre at the Institute of Development
Studies, University of Sussex’, unpublished concept note
—— (2000b) ‘Application to Department of International Development, Economic
and Social Research, Development Research Centres’, unpublished funding
application
Kabeer, N. (ed.), (2005) Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings and Expressions, London
and New York: Zed
Kruse, S.; Kyllönen, T.; Ojanperä, S.; Riddell, R.C. and Vielajus, J. (1997)
‘Searching for Impact and Methods: NGO Evaluation Synthesis Study’, unpublished
report prepared for the OECD/DAC Expert Group on Evaluation
Leach, M.; Scoones, I. and Wynne, B. (eds) (2005) Science and Citizens:
Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, London and New York: Zed
Manor, J. (2004) ‘Democratisation with Inclusion: Political Reforms and People’s
Empowerment at the Grassroots’, Journal of Human Development 5.1: 5–30
Mansbridge, J. (1997) ‘Normative Theory and Voice and Equality’, American
Political Science Association, 91.2: 423–25
Mansuri, G. and Rao, V. (2004) ‘Community-based and –driven development: a
critical review’, World Bank Research Observer 19.1: 1–39
Marshall, M.G.; Jaggers, K. and Gurr, T. R. (2009) ‘Polity IV Project: Political
Regime and Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2008’, Center for Systemic
Peace and Center for Global Policy, www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/inscr.htm
(accessed 5 February 2010)
Marston, C. and King, E. (2006) ‘Factors That Shape Young People’s Sexual
Behavior: A Systematic Review’, The Lancet 368: 1581–86
McDermott, E. and Graham, H. (2006) ‘Young Mothers and Smoking: Evidence of
an Evidence Gap’, Social Science and Medicine 63.6: 1546–49
Merrifield, J. (2001) Learning Citizenship, Discussion Paper prepared for Institute
of Development Studies Participation Group and Society for Participatory
Research in Asia, London: Learning from Experiences Trust, Goldsmiths College
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook, Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications
Newell, P. and Wheeler, J. (eds), (2006) Rights, Resources and the Politics of
Accountability, London and New York: Zed
Noblit, G.W. and Hare, R.D. (1988) Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative
Studies, Newbury Park, USA: Sage Publications
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
71
Nyamu-Musembi, C. (2002) Towards an Actor-oriented Perspective on Human
Rights, IDS Working Paper 169, Brighton: IDS
O’Neill, T.; Foresti, M. and Hudson, A. (2007) Evaluation of Citizens’ Voice and
Accountability: Review of the Literature and Donor Approaches, London:
Department for International Development
Olken, B. (2007) ‘Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in
Indonesia’, Journal of Political Economy 115.2: 200–49
Pateman, C. (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Putnam, R. (2001) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community, New York: Simon and Schuster
Robinson, M. (2004) ‘Resources, Citizen Engagement and Democratic Local
Governance’, unpublished background paper, LogoLink workshop, Kerala, 4–16
January
Rocha Menocal, A. and Sharma, B. (2008) Joint Evaluation of Citizens’ Voice and
Accountability: Synthesis Report, London: Department for International Development
Schofield, J.W. (2002) ‘Increasing the Generalizability of Qualitative Research’, in
A.M. Huberman and M.B. Miles (eds), Qualitative Researcher’s Companion,
Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications
Siau, K. and Long, Y. (2005) ‘Synthesizing e-Government Stage Modes – A MetaSynthesis
Based on Meta-Ethnography Approach’, Industrial Management and
Data Systems 105.4: 443–58
Thompson, L. and Tapscott, C. (eds), (2010) Citizenship and Social Movements:
Perspectives from the Global South, London and New York: Zed
Thorne, S. and Paterson, B. (1998) ‘Shifting Images of Chronic Illness’, The
Journal of Nursing Scholarship 30.2: 173–8
UN (2008) People Matter: Civic Engagement in Public Governance, New York:
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Warren, M.E. (2001) Democracy and Association, Princeton: Princeton University
Press
World Bank (2010) Harmonized List of Fragile Situations, FY10,
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTLICUS/Resources/511777-1269623894864/
Fragile_Situations_List_FY10_Mar_26_2010_EXT.pdf (accessed 11 May 2010)
World Bank (1994) The World Bank and Participation, Washington: World Bank
Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks,
USA: Sage Publications
IDS WORKING PAPER 347
72