Towards a Theory of Local Governance and Public Goods Provision

Under?provision of essential public goods is making development in Africa slower and more inequitable than it needs to be. A good part of this problem concerns the governance of provision at sub?national levels. This article provides a mid?term report on a multi?country research effort to shed light on the institutional sources of variation in local public goods provision. The particular focus is on key bottlenecks to improvement in maternal mortality, water and sanitation, facilitation of markets and enterprise, and public order and security. Drawing on fieldwork evidence and secondary literature, it identifies three clusters of issues and associated explanatory variables which seem to account for much of the variation in intermediate outcomes. They concern the extent of policy?driven incoherence in the institutional framework, the strength of corporate disciplines in provider organisations and the degree to which self?help is able to be ‘locally anchored’ in two particular senses

Introduction: Working with the Grain? The Africa Power and Politics Programme

At the heart of current policy thinking about Africa there is a significant knowledge gap concerning governance and development. This IDS Bulletin is concerned with what can be done about that, drawing on the initial experience of a new research venture, the Africa Power and Politics Programme. The APPP is committed to discovering forms of governance that work better for development than those prescribed by the current ‘good governance’ orthodoxy. It aims to do so chiefly by examining the range of post?colonial experience in sub?Saharan Africa focusing especially on under?appreciated patterns of difference in institutions and outcomes. This article explains the rationale of this approach and outlines the options which have shaped the programme's methods and concepts. A central challenge has been operationalising the working hypothesis that institutions function better when they ‘work with the grain’ of the society which hosts them

Power, Violence, Citizenship and Agency

Peace-building, state-building and democratisation efforts often focus strongly on the state, and follow the Weberian logic of states holding the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence. In doing so, they may be neglecting more recent and nuanced understandings of the nature of governance arrangements in fragile and conflict settings, and of the range and scope of citizen agency both in general and in such settings. This article presents a research programme on Power, Violence, Citizenship and Agency, which sets out to counter the state?heavy or at best ‘CSO?heavy’ approach of many aid agencies and peace?building change agents. Through a fresh look at relevant literature and theory and case studies in five settings marked by violent conflict, the programme seeks to construct the conceptual clarity and synergies that are needed to underpin shifts towards more citizen?centred perspectives among aid and change agents working in situations of chronic violence and fragility

Violence, security and democracy: perverse interfaces and their implications for states and citizens in the global South

How does violence affect the everyday lives of citizens in the global South? Researching this theme under the aegis of the Violence, Participation and Citizenship group of the Citizenship DRC coordinated by IDS, we generated some answers, but also more questions, which this paper starts to explore. Why have democratisation processes failed to fulfil expectations of violence reduction in the global South? How does violence affect democracy and vice versa? Why does security practice in much of the global South not build secure environments? When examined empirically from the perspectives of poor Southern citizens, the interfaces between violence, security and democracy – assumed in conventional state and democratisation theory to be positive or benign – are often, in fact, perverse. Empirically-based reflection on these questions leads us to two propositions, which the paper then explores through the use of secondary literature. In essence: Proposition 1: Violence interacts perversely with democratic institutions, eroding their legitimacy and effectiveness. Democracy fails to deliver its promise of replacing the violence with accommodation and compromise, and democratic process is compromised, with citizens reacting by withdrawing from public spaces, accepting the authority of non-state actors, or supporting hard-line responses. Proposition 2: Security provision is not making people feel more secure. State responses to rising violence can strengthen state and non-state security actors committed to reproducing violence, disproportionately affecting the poorest communities