IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v41y2023is1ne12683.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Everyday governance in areas of contested power: Insights from Mozambique, Myanmar, and Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Colin Anderson
  • Anuradha Joshi
  • Katrina Barnes
  • Affaf Ahmed
  • Muddabir Ali
  • Egidio Chaimite
  • Salvador Forquilha
  • Danyal Khan
  • Rizwan Khan
  • Miguel Loureiro
  • Myanmar Research Team
  • Lucio Posse
  • Jo Rowlands
  • Alex Shankland

Abstract

Motivation How do poor and marginalized people solve problems and claim rights and entitlements in places affected by conflict and where state authority is contested? Understanding such processes is important as the numbers of poor people living in difficult settings grows, yet existing research on governance in conflict largely misses a “citizen's eye” view of these processes. Purpose The article focuses on “everyday governance” from a citizen's perspective. What do engagements with the multiple state and non‐state actors that prevail in such settings look like? We present insights from longitudinal research in conflict‐affected areas in Mozambique, Myanmar and Pakistan. Methods and approach Research was undertaken in two phases over the period 2017–2021. Researchers developed an innovative method, “governance diaries,” in which we interviewed the same set of poor and marginalized households over a period of a year, capturing an unfolding citizen's eye view of governance. We subsequently used the same method to include key intermediaries to whom households went with problems. Findings We find that in most instances poor and marginalized households did not rely on the state or other formal or external authorities to resolve problems. Mostly, they simply “lived with” those problems, or resolved them through “self‐provision”—mutual aid and community action. When they did go to authorities, they used “governance intermediaries”—actors that connect people with authorities or mediate between households. These intermediaries played a central role in local governance, using their networks and deploying a range of strategies with a focus on local resolution of problems. Policy implications These findings challenge some core assumptions of contemporary development practice. First, development programmes tend to focus on improving state‐run services, rather than engaging with the diversity of how public goods are governed on the ground. Second, policies assume that people can go directly to authorities with their problems, and do not take into account the role that intermediaries play. Finally, the highly diverse networks of governance actors that matter to specific places challenges the common focus on formal systems rather than informal practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Colin Anderson & Anuradha Joshi & Katrina Barnes & Affaf Ahmed & Muddabir Ali & Egidio Chaimite & Salvador Forquilha & Danyal Khan & Rizwan Khan & Miguel Loureiro & Myanmar Research Team & Lucio Posse, 2023. "Everyday governance in areas of contested power: Insights from Mozambique, Myanmar, and Pakistan," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:41:y:2023:i:s1:n:e12683
    DOI: 10.1111/dpr.12683
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12683
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/dpr.12683?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Colin Anderson, 2023. "Understanding accountability in practice: Obligations, scrutiny, and consequences," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.
    2. Shandana Khan Mohmand & Colin Anderson, 2023. "Researching governance in difficult times and places: Reflections from Mozambique, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Pakistan," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.
    3. World Bank Group, 2020. "World Bank Group Strategy for Fragility, Conflict, and Violence 2020–2025," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 34858.
    4. Anuradha Joshi, 2023. "What makes “difficult” settings difficult? Contextual challenges for accountability," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John Gaventa, 2023. "Repertoires of citizen action in hybrid settings," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.
    2. Sohela Nazneen, 2023. "Women's political agency in difficult settings: Analysis of evidence from Egypt, Nigeria, Mozambique, and Pakistan," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Gaventa & Anuradha Joshi & Colin Anderson, 2023. "Citizen action for accountability in challenging contexts: What have we learned?," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.
    2. John Gaventa, 2023. "Repertoires of citizen action in hybrid settings," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.
    3. Anuradha Joshi, 2023. "What makes “difficult” settings difficult? Contextual challenges for accountability," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.
    4. Colin Anderson, 2023. "Understanding accountability in practice: Obligations, scrutiny, and consequences," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.
    5. Sohela Nazneen, 2023. "Women's political agency in difficult settings: Analysis of evidence from Egypt, Nigeria, Mozambique, and Pakistan," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:41:y:2023:i:s1:n:e12683. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.