Research: Transparency is the topic of seven articles in the July issue of Development Policy Review.
The “Gaps and Conclusions” section of the first article, by John Gaventa and Rosemary McGee , says:
While the evidence base on accountability and transparency may be underdeveloped, this does not mean that either it or TAIs themselves are not important. The methods and insights already emerging from this dynamic, relatively young, but rapidly expanding field now need to be built on in order to deepen existing evidence.
Noteworthy in our review were the silos which currently characterise the transparency and accountability field. Both the literature and the key actors working in the fields of service delivery, budgets, information, natural resources and aid appear isolated from one another. From a practical and strategic point of view, there are synergies to be gained from developing more cross-cutting strategies and networks across these initiatives; and from an impact-assessment point of view, far more comparative and holistic analysis is needed of how the ensemble of TAIs now available can interact with one another to maximise the scope for change.
On the methodological side, the review suggests a number of strategies or innovations which could help to strengthen the quality and depth of the current evidence base. At one level, as argued previously, we need more of the same. A number of good, specific studies exist, using a range of methods, but there are not enough of these, across enough settings and methods, to begin to point unequivocally to overall patterns or to draw higher-order conclusions. In addition, the state of the evidence could be improved in various ways: more systematic and rigorous design of the initiatives themselves; more early attention to holistic ‘baseline’ or initial context analysis, theories of change, sought outcomes and impacts; periodic updating of the context analysis; and the adoption of appropriateness (of the questions to which answers are sought) as the key criterion in selecting impact-assessment methods.
The review also points to routes to enhancing TAIs’ impact. Better insights are needed into the relationships between transparency, accountability, citizens’ voice and participation, the conditions under which they interact positively, and what stimulates collective social action for accountability. The connections across various TAI ‘fields’ need to be strengthened to maximise learning. The black box of ‘political will’ that so often bars the way between TAIs and their sought impacts requires empirical unpacking.
At the conceptual level, we need, first, to move beyond simple dichotomies – such as supply and demand, and voice and response – and learn how to build cross-cutting conceptualisations that link civil-society organisations, the media, champions inside government, private-sector actors, researchers and others across these boundaries.
Secondly, current cutting-edge work on governance must be brought to bear on T and A work. Thirdly, the concept of ‘best practice’ needs to be relegated in favour of sensitivity to context: working out why ‘successful’ initiatives succeeded, before rushing to scale them up or replicate them in other contexts. More investment is vital in the assessment and knowledge-building aspects of the T and A arena ifit is to realise its considerable potential.
We end with a challenge. An excessively technical approach to accountability relationships and their workings tends to obscure the ‘accountability politics’ (Fox, 2007b) that need to happen for TAIs to have a lasting and transformative impact. This proposition has implications that go beyond effectiveness-enhancing measures and methodological refinements of impact-assessment approaches.
It calls for a re-thinking of what impact means in relation to accountability programmes and projects, and to governance and social-change efforts more broadly. This challenge to the prevailing impact paradigm has significant implications for the questions driving impact assessments and, consequently, for their designs. The realities of unaccountable governance, unproven accountability programming in complex and varied contexts, and uncertain evidence of impact all suggest that such a shift is nonetheless necessary. To evade it is to continue asking misguided questions and getting partial answers.
Contest: Help Irish freelance investigative journalist and self-described “ huge FOIA nerd,” who is seeking support in a contest to raise money to help her complete an investigation into the assassination of a Northern Irish MP during the country’s civil war. “The vast bulk of my reporting is spent procuring documents under public records laws. For nearly 2 years, I’ve been running an investigative news blog, The Muckraker. She is seeking more followers on this site: https://www.arthurguinnessprojects.com/arts/murder-of-a-minister. To win, I need to get 100 followers to catch up with competing projects and get into the top 10% (at which point the projects will be forwarded to the judge).”
“There is a huge FOI component to my work. For the book, I’m actually fighting with the Ministry of Defence and local police to get hold of hold security documents. It’s highly likely the cases will end up in court. Around 70-80% of my work is based on documents procured under the FOIA. My technique is to get sources to tell me what documents to ask for under the FOIA, documents that substantiate what their saying.”
United States: A commentary on a recent announcement by the U.S. government on aid transparency by the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Employment: “Restless Development is recruiting an Open Data Adviser to play a leading role in the technical design process for a big idea to transform government transparency. This role will support national partners to analyse, interpret and use open data and play a central role in building long term,
strategic partnerships linking the project to the open data community. The post would be well suited to someone with an interest in data journalism, or with an interest in using their technical open data skills for social change. To apply download the Send CV and covering letter to victoria@restlessdevelopment.org by 12 noon BST on Aug. 22.
Employment: “Consultancy opportunity: Land Governance, especially Land Acquisitions: Preparing papers to support discussions.” Offered by the Transparency and Accountability Initiative.
Filed under: What's New