Social Accountability – Concepts and New Approaches

1. Social Accountability – Concepts and New Approaches Colm Allan, Director, PSAM, Rhodes University Launch of Affiliated Network for Social Accountability (ANSA) Africa Pretoria 11/12 December 2006

2. Disillusionment in government • Recent years seen loss of confidence in governments (North and South) due to corruption, abuse of power, ineffective use of public resources • Civil society belief that role of national government made redundant by TNCs and IFIs • Much emphasis on need to strengthen citizen participation in governance – NEPAD & APRM • Yet, insufficient attention to either the rationale or mechanisms for enhanced citizen participation

3. Failure of Marxism & Liberalism to Theorise State • Collapse of Eastern Bloc resulted in loss of confidence in Marxist theory – since 1990s liberal democratic model & neo-liberal economic theory largely unchallenged • Yet, Marxist & liberal theorists failed equally to explain role of the state in ensuring accountable use of public resources and in promoting social justice • Liberal focus purely on protection of individual rights and limiting capacity of state to intrude. Leads to minimalist concept of state. Accountability reduced to right to recall elected political representatives. • Market seen as inherently rational mechanism for deciding on economic matters – strict separation of economic & political matters

4. Failure of Marxism & liberalism (cont) • Whereas liberals overlook impact of resource inequalities on ability to participate in political process, Marxists reduce politics to economic class inequalities • Neo-liberals attempt to roll-back state, Marxists reduce state to being a repressive apparatus • Neither school can explain the role of the state as an enabling mechanism to ensure accountable use of resources or to empower ordinary persons to obtain social justice

5. Focus on citizenship • Past 2 decades seen emergence of new body of literature on citizenship - highlights importance of citizen intervention in state governance need to hold govt & other institutions accountable • World Bank draws direct connection between accountability and ‘civic engagement’ • World Bank defines accountability as ‘ability to call pubic officials, private employers, or service providers to account, requiring that they be answerable for their policies, actions and use of funds’ • Therefore accountability involves both an obligation of public officials or corporations and a right of people or citizens • But ,World Bank stops short of viewing social accountability as a fundamental human right • Approach also couched in the language of New Public Management (presupposes competition between service providers, existence of clients/consumers of services, privatisation)

6. World Bank approach to enhance Accountability There has been varying success with these. What has been learnt is that success often depends on direct participation of the people 1. Rules and Regulations – administrative procedures, audits,… 2. Bring in Market Principles – privatization or contracting out to private sector and NGOs 3. Independent Agencies – ombudsman, vigilance commissions,… • 4.“Social Accountability” • Source – World Bank

7. Short and long routes of accountability • Source – World Bank

8. Problems with client-centered approach • Starts from basis that citizens should use their power as consumers to hold service providers to account & become involved in civic engagement (public expenditure tracking etc) • Assumes existence of range of service providers to choose from • Logically presupposes privatisation • Side-steps need to build effective constitutional & parliamentary institutions

9. Rights-based approach • Based on international human rights standards • Views rights contained in international treaties & declarations as legally enforceable entitlements - includes civil, political and socio-economic rights • Focus is on obligations of states to establish necessary legislative, administrative and institutional mechanism to give effect to international framework • Addresses capacity of range of bodies (including Constitutional bodies & CSOs) to monitor the accountability of duty-bearers in meeting their obligations

10. Social accountability as a fundamental human right • Rights-based approach is limited by its definition of accountability as a political principle, need to extend this approach to include a distinct right to social accountability • Social accountability should be defined as the right to obtain justifications and explanations for the use of public resources from those entrusted with their management (whether government officials or private service providers). • Those responsible for public resources have an obligation to explain/justify how decisions/actions have contributed to the progressive realisation of citizens rights (including socio-economic) and to take steps to correct ineffective use/abuse of resources

11. Proposed universal right to social accountability Every person shall have a right to obtain justifications and explanations for the use of public goods and resources – a) from those involved in making decisions on the allocation of such goods and resources as may affect or threaten his or her rights; b) from those responsible for the management of such goods and resources as may affect or threaten his or her rights; and c) from those responsible for exercising oversight of the effective use of such resources as may affect or threaten his or her rights. Such explanations and justifications should provide a clear indication of how available resources are, or were, intended to be utilised for the purposes of progressively realising human rights.

12. Objections – administrative burden & criteria for ‘justifiable’ decisions Administrative burden In absence of right to social accountability is no rationale for ordinary people to increase participation in governance Objective – build social movement to entrench an ethic of justification by insisting that decision-makers ‘justify’ decisions relating to use of public resources. Long term goal to build a society in which the right to social accountability justiciable Proposed criteria for justifiable decisions • Decision-makers should consider all serious objections/alternatives to decisions taken and have plausible answers to objections and reasons for discarding alternatives • Decision-makers should be able to demonstrate a rational connection between the argument, evidence and information informing their decisions and the decision taken

13. Practical Monitoring - Demand- versus supply-side of governance

14. Multiple approaches to demand-side monitoring & corresponding advocacy strategies • Macro level - Policy Monitoring & Analysis (national/international)- focus on development of constitutional provisions, legislation & policies eg finance regulations, trade policies, macro-budget allocations Advocacy strategy – lobbying policy-makers • Meso level - Accountability Systems Monitoring (sub-national) – focus on implementation of accountability & service delivery systems at site of oversight of delivery Advocacy strategy – high profile (critical) engagement on system implementation • Micro level - Social auditing (local) – focus on verifying project implementation eg building of health centre or school in village Advocacy strategy – engagement with officials and service providers

15. Monitoring accountability systems

16. Methodology for monitoring social accountability systems

17. PSAM Monitoring Results Conducted detailed monitoring of the performance and realisation of rights by Eastern Cape Departments of Health, Education, Welfare and Housing between 2000 and 2006. Evaluation of following 5 accountability systems: • Planning and resource allocation system • Expenditure management system • Performance management system • Integrity system • Oversight system

18. System 1. Planning & Resource Allocation None of the 4 departments strategic plans or budget documents: • Included an accurate analysis of citizens’ needs (including epidemiological trends, number of people without housing, access to clinics, schools, nutrition, social grants etc) • Included accurate information on the departments’ own organisational challenges and operational capacity • Examples • The Dept of Health failed to produce business plans for almost 40% of its HIV/AIDS budget between 2000-2004. • The Dept of Housing failed to identify the number and location of citizens requiring housing between 1996 and 2006 • The Dept of Education failed to plan for the salaries of its excess staff (of an average of 11 000, mostly teachers) between 2000-2005

19. System 2. Expenditure Management • The lack of effective planning resulted in the inability of the 4 Depts to report effectively against plans. As a result their managers, the Treasury and oversight bodies were unable to monitor their spending effectively • This resulted in over/under-spending Examples • The Dept of Health failed to account for 73% of its (provincial) HIV/AIDS budget between 2000 – 2003 (R90.2 m), 26% of budget was unspent (R33 m). • The Dept of Housing failed to spend R928 million or 29% of its housing budget between 2000 – 2004 • The Dept of Education overspent its budget by R1.1 billion between 2000 - 2004

20. System 3. Performance management All 4 Departments: • Failed to maintain proper risk management and internal audit systems Example • The EC Dept of Housing has consistently failed to monitor quality of new houses built – the AG found in 2002/2003 that 90% of houses he inspected did not conform to national norms and standards System 4. Integrity system All 4 Departments: • Lacked effective systems to monitor and enforce disciplinary proceedings – including adequately staffed disciplinary units, the appointment of presiding officers and proper maintenance of disciplinary databases

21. System 5. Oversight All 4 Departments displayed an inability and/or unwillingness to address problems raised by the Auditor-General (AG) • Each year since 1996 the AG has raised the same issues relating to poor financial controls • In 2002 the AG pointed out that not a single Public Accounts Committee resolution had been implemented between 1995 – 2002 • AG issued ‘disclaimer’ audit opinion for 77% of the total EC budget between 1996 – 2006 • ‘Disclaimer’ issued when there is a lack of accurate financial records and failure to properly record all financial transactions. • Whilst this does not mean these amounts were lost/stolen the province could not properly accountfor the use of R174 billion out of R225 billion. • In this context it is impossible to establish whether these funds resulted in effective service delivery.

22. System 5.Oversight (Cont) Auditor-General’s Audit Opinions on EC budget between 1996 – 2006

23. PSAM Impact Sustained advocacy has contributed to: • Increased public & oversight committee awareness of importance of accurate financial reporting by government departments in EC – especially around audit disclaimers • Establishment of a declarations of interest register for the EC executive and Legislature in 2004 • Creation of disciplinary databases in key EC service delivery departments in 2005 – Health, Education • Improved civil society participation in EC governance processes – eg established a Human Rights Working Group (which meets quarterly) • Strengthened parliamentary oversight committees – briefings (with findings & recommendations) to committee members

24. Recommendations • Adopt explicit rights-based approach • Expand rights-based approach by recognising social accountability as a fundamental right to obtain explanations and justifications for the use of public resources • Entrench an ethic of justification by elaborating clear criteria to ‘justify’ decisions relating to use of public resources – long term goal to build a society in which the right to social accountability justiciable

25. Recommendations (Cont) • Balance support for supply and demand aspects of accountability. Strengthen capacity of duty-bearers to produce requisite information, explanations & justifications and strengthen power of rights-holders to demand, access & analyse this information • Provide support for dissemination of evidence-based monitoring tools to ensure practical policy implementation • Provide more support for meso-level monitoring of accountability systems in LDCs