Theories of Change for Promoting Empowerment and Accountability in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Settings

Published by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) in association with the Action for Empowerment and Accountability Research Programme (A4EA), this paper explores the current state of thinking among a range of aid actors (multilaterals, bilateral, applied scholars, and international non-governmental organisations, or NGOs) on how to promote empowerment and accountability (E&A) in fragile, conflict, and violence-affected settings (FCVAS). In it, Duncan Green seeks to identify trends, gaps, and weaknesses in that thinking and to propose research questions and hypotheses.

Following an Executive Summary, Section 2 provides an overview of the definitions of key terms used in this paper. For example, "FCVAS are characterised by social fragmentation, low levels of trust, and weak state capacity and/or legitimacy. Civil society may lack leadership and have limited access to information or means of communication." Section 3 considers the importance of examining theories of endogenous change in FCVAS, and Section 4 focuses on informal power and the role of identity in shaping political choice. Section 5 examines the implications of violence and conflict on governance, which often results in a situation of co-existing state and non-state authorities. Section 6 looks at the gaps and missed opportunities for external actors in not articulating a proper theory of change (ToC) when focusing on FCVAS, while Section 7 moves on to examine why these gaps happen. Section 8 examines how theories of change and action have evolved over time, with Section 9 providing the current state of thinking. Finally, the concluding section of the paper sets out some possible hypotheses to test on future directions for promoting E&A in FCVAS.

Green's overall hypothesis is that clarifying and responding to three underlying sources of confusion will improve both understanding and practice on E&A in FCVAS, generating a series of research questions and hypotheses to test during the course of the A4EA programme. They are:

1. Theory of endogenous change (e.g., on how E&A arise in situ) versus the theory of action (ToA) of an external intervention: This paper distinguishes two different aspects of ToCs that are often conflated, especially by aid organisations. First, a ToC sets out an understanding of how endogenous change (produced within or caused by factors within) takes place in any given system; endogenous theories of change could also be termed "pathways of change", since they may or may not reflect the conscious strategies of identifiable actors. With that distinction, the question for external actors becomes how to strengthen the conditions for certain pathways. Second, a ToA sets out the strategy and tactics to be adopted for an intervention by a given organisation, the stakeholders to be involved, and how the exogenous (comes from outside) intervention will achieve the outcomes that are expected. In practice, many organisations use the term ToC to describe their ToA. This paper argues that conflating the two leads to a systematic under-examination of the nature and dynamics of endogenous change, an exaggeration of the influence of external actors, and significant oversights and lost opportunities.
2. Fragility versus conflict: Most development agencies define fragility principally as a fundamental failure of the state to perform functions necessary to meet citizens' basic needs and expectations. On the other hand, conflict is relational, is present in every human society, can be constructive if managed well, and is usually necessary for social change. (In contrast, violence is the use of actions, attitudes, words, structures, etc. to cause harm.) There is no clear justification for combining these different aspects - fragility and conflict - into a single category.
3. Empowerment versus accountability: Donor analysis and practice has been weighted towards accountability, exhibiting limited understanding of or interest in the nature of power. The increased importance of non-state actors underlines the particular importance of informal power in understanding and influencing E&A in FCVAS. Identity (regional, ethnic, religious) also plays a central role, acting as a reservoir of both trust and suspicion.

The following two paragraphs are excerpted from the Executive Summary:
"The historical record highlights the dynamics of change in FCVAS. This often involves sudden discontinuities (critical junctures) and the negotiation of new political settlements, (although inertia is also a critical factor) driven by a combination of ideas, interests and institutions. Power and political economy analysis are essential prerequisites to working effectively in these settings. A number of inter-connected features and drivers of change appear more salient in fragile than in non-fragile settings. With a weak or absent national state, non-state actors become more prominent, including faith organisations, diaspora communities and traditional authorities. Formal civil society organisations (CSOs) are often weaker in FCVAS, whereas other less formal civil society activities (funeral and savings groups, cultural associations) persist and can become stepping stones to E&A. Their fluidity and lack of clear organisational structure, however, often prevent them being recognised or supported by external actors..."

"Today, donor thinking on E&A in FCVAS is at something of a crossroads. One current of thinking advocates deeper engagement with context, involving greater analytical skills, and regular analysis of the evolving political, social and economic system; working with non-state actors, sub-national state tiers and informal power; the importance of critical junctures heightening the need for fast feedback and response mechanisms; and changing social norms and working on generation-long shifts requiring new thinking about the tools and methods of engagement of the aid community. But the analysis also engenders a good deal of scepticism and caution about the potential for success, so an alternative opinion argues for pulling back to a limited focus on the 'enabling environment', principally through transparency and access to information. A third option makes the 'both/and' case for an optimal combination of direct intervention and enabling environment approaches."

As an example, of the latter (third) option, in Section 9 of the paper, the United Kingdom (UK) Department for International Development (DFID)'s Tessa MacArthur discusses the role of "infomediaries". The idea, in her words, is that "you can't just put information into the public domain and expect results. You need groups located between citizen and state that make data meaningful, e.g. media, investigative journalists, CSOs." Cited in the paper as an example of infomediary promotion is BBC Media Action's work on "creating space", which aims to connect communities with national debates, while at the same time encouraging normative shifts and the "reimagining of social relations...between groups in society and in power, including those between men and women" (BBC Media Action 2016: 6). In Nepal, BBC Media Action supports a debate show, Sajha Sawal (Common Questions), which has a female presenter, seeks to ensure there is a female panellist on each show, and has a live audience that is more than 40% female. This fits with a hypothesis for A4EA that is presented in the Conclusion of the paper: "Successful E&A interventions in FCVAS should give greater weight to empowerment, especially in informal spheres, and in the early stages of an intervention."

In a related blog (see Source section, below), Green adds: "When so many traditional aid approaches have failed in the past, there's a particularly strong case for looking for 'positive deviance' - observe the system to try and spot where it has already found solutions (total or partial) to whatever it is you are concerned about - water, environment, women's rights etc, and then see if such outliers can be encouraged to spread." Here, he also makes the point that, in contexts of insecurity and fear, "social norms and levels of trust become more prominent: minor shifts (eg to feeling a bit safer) in attitudes and behaviours may have a greater and more lasting effect on wellbeing than the more tangible outcomes (crops, jobs, access to services) that are typically targeted by the aid business, but can easily be swept away in the instability that characterises FCVS."

A4EA is implemented by a consortium consisting of: IDS, the Accountability Research Center (ARC), the Collective for Social Science Research (CSSR), the Institute of Development and Economic Alternatives (IDEAS), Itad, Oxfam GB, and the Partnership for African Social and Governance Research (PASGR). Research focuses on five countries: Egypt, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Pakistan. A4EA is funded by the UK government.