Social accountability monitoring as an approach to promoting active citizenship in Tanzania

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Social accountability monitoring as an approach to promoting active citizenship in Tanzania © Authors, 2020 Published version Nguyahambi, Ajali M.; Chang’a, Haji H. Nguyahambi, A. M., & Chang’a, H. H. (2020). Social accountability monitoring as an approach to promoting active citizenship in Tanzania. In K. Holma, & T. Kontinen (Eds.), Practices of Citizenship in East Africa : Perspectives from Philosophical Pragmatism (pp. 209-226). Routledge. Routledge Explorations in Development Studies. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429279171-14 2020 14 Social accountability monitoring as an approach to promoting active citizenship in Tanzania Ajali M. Nguyahambi and Haji H. Chang’a Introduction This chapter scrutinizes attempts to promote change in current citizenship habits through different forms of participation. It focuses on social accountability monitoring (SAM), which is one of the intervention approaches globally used to facilitate changes in citizenship practices, especially in regard to citizen-state relations. The approach is widely employed by many civil society organizations (CSOs) to promote people’s active participation in order to influence the outcomes of governance processes (UNDP 2013; Ahmad 2008). SAM draws its legitimacy –among actors focusing on democratic governance and development –from its ability to create new spaces for citizens and civic groups in which to interact with the government and its agencies; it thereby recognizes citizen participation as a necessary and important practice (FriisHansen & Ravnkilde 2013), especially in contexts where the government is traditionally the dominant actor in governance. Previous research has shown that there are multiple factors affecting the outcomes and implementation of SAM. Context-based factors include the role of different kinds of political institutions, the types and capacity of CSOs involved and the nature of statesociety relations and those between groups and citizens (Hickey & King 2016; King 2015; Campbell et al. 2010; Shankar 2010). In addition, interventionbased factors such as the credibility of lead actors –that is, individuals and organizations (Joshi & Houtzager 2012) –also have impact on results. In this chapter, we analyse the ways in which the implementation of SAM both promotes and hinders the ideal model of active citizen participation in Tanzania. We begin with general discussion based on the literature, followed by illustrative examples from the context of a CSO initiative located in Kondoa District whose goal is to improve service delivery in the health sector. In the course of this, we address the following questions: (a) What kind of model is SAM, both in general terms and from the perspective of the particular CSO implementing it? (b) What kinds of changes does SAM promote with regard to citizen-state relations at the local level? (c) What kinds of discrepancies can occur between ideal SAM-models and their implementation in Tanzania? In what follows we first review the principles of the SAM approach, then discuss the model used and outcomes and discrepancies with the model in the course of its implementation. In conclusion, we argue that the success of the SAM model in promoting changes in the direction of a certain kind of active citizenship depends on whether the promotion of the ideal model takes into account contexts at the local level. Social accountability monitoring and active citizenship In this section, we describe the SAM approach and the kind of active citizenship it promotes, briefly sketching the approach’s historical background in international development in general, and in Africa in particular. We then analyse accountability as the central issue in the SAM model, as well as experiences of promoting “active citizenship”through SAM as an established governance framework. The adoption of the SAM approach in sub-Saharan Africa commenced in the mid-1980s as a corrective mechanism for failures in public service delivery systems. Indeed, early initiatives came along with the adoption of World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF)-led Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) that promised to fix trade and production environments in order to boost declining economies and public service delivery (Malena & McNeil 2010). In the same vein, governance was equally subject to reform that promoted approaches facilitating citizen-led forms of accountability. Therefore, SAM has been adopted in order to provide a mechanism that stimulates improvement in service delivery (Friis-Hansen & Ravnkilde 2013) and addresses socio-economic inequalities, especially poverty (Ringold et al. 2012). With the SAM approach, citizens and civic organizations undertake a wide range of actions in order to hold the state to account; this gives citizens the opportunity to contribute to improving the results of governance and to influence the quality of service delivery (Claasen & Alpin-Lardies 2010). Generally, social accountability monitoring as an approach seeks to promote a particular view of active citizenship, one cornerstone of which is a participating citizen. Participation involves the shift in status of ordinary people from mere beneficiary to citizen, from consultation to decision-making and from appraisal to implementation. In promoting the right to participation in social, economic, cultural and political life, SAM is embedded in and draws from the nexus of basic human rights (Gaventa 2004). The approach emphasizes citizens’rights to be active and involved in making and implementing decisions that affect them, and, thus, also regards participation as a duty towards the government and fellow citizens. According to Gaventa and Valderrama (1999), participation is both the right and duty of a citizen in situations where local governance calls for the increased participation of civil society in activities that traditionally form part of the public sphere. This implies that participation is a key element in governance at all levels. It facilitates the introduction of improvements to public services, makes local 210 Nguyahambi and Chang’a government more accountable and, more importantly, deepens democracy by complementing representative forms with more participatory forms (Gaventa 2002); as Lister (1998) observes, participation is an expression of human agency in the political arena. In line with this, SAM’s underlying idea is that the influence of, and exercise of control by, citizens on governance happens not only through indirect or representational forms of participation, but also through direct participation. Therefore, the idea of participation as a civic right emerges from the discourse of governance and citizenship that seeks to address the exclusion of citizens from policy formulation and decision making, especially in key areas that affect their lives. Moreover, SAM’s view of active citizenship expects informed citizenry, as information catalyzes citizens’action. This idea guides the philosophy behind SAM initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, those in Tanzania focus on motivating citizens to “be informed, involved, and monitor every move, in order to make their government work for them”(Mugizi 2013; Colm 2008). In this respect, people are expected to speak their minds and be proactive in demanding accountability, as citizens’actions are supposed to trigger state responses. So, SAM initiatives emphasize the realization of basic political and civic rights, access to information, as well as government responsiveness vis-ávis citizens’demands. Additionally, SAM builds on the accountability resulting from active citizen participation as a cornerstone of good governance. Accountability, in this context, plays two main functions: first, it prevents, or rather limits, the abuse of power and ensures the predictability of the actions of the state and its agencies; second, it provides continuous public supervision and control of the state and its agencies in order to ensure that public services are suited to citizens’needs and interests (Joshi 2013; Green 2015; Malena & McNeil 2010). SAM emphasizes the importance of citizens’participation (direct or indirect), which enables them to demand accountability from policy makers, service providers and program managers, and to ensure that public/state institutions act in their best interests. It also denotes the “rights-duty”relationship between state institutions as duty bearers and citizens as rights holders (Clippinger et al. 2014; UNDP 2010), thereby aligning citizenship with the rights-based approach to development in which duties are well executed and rights are realized. Accountability framework literature conventionally identifies vertical and horizontal forms of accountability (Joshi 2013; 2008; Ahmad 2008). Vertical accountability takes place between state and citizens, wherein the main instruments that citizens use to hold duty bearers accountable are periodic elections, usually considered democratic practices. Horizontal accountability takes place between different state agencies via a separation of powers. A form of political accountability, it is exercised through checks and balances applied to state institutions that involve parliamentary oversight, independent judiciary and ombudsmen offices, such as anti-corruption bureaus, human rights commissions, Comptroller and Auditor Generals and public service Social accountability monitoring 211 codes of ethics. Nevertheless, in order to ensure the optimal reinforcement of existing accountability mechanisms, governance actors encourage citizen-led accountability initiatives that go beyond periodic elections. In this regard, SAM initiatives respond to the situation that vertical and horizontal accountabilities are never self-sufficient and exhaustive enough to make public officials fully inform citizens regarding the happenings taking place in the public service arena, especially at the grassroots level (World Bank 2007; Hyden et al. 2003). It is not the intention of SAM to replace existing accountability mechanisms; instead, it is meant to reinforce and complement them by emphasizing the direct or indirect participation of ordinary citizens and civic groups in demanding accountability from the duty bearers. SAM initiatives can be initiated and/or supported by the state, civil society and/ or citizens, although very often they are demand-driven and operate from the bottom up (Clippinger et al. 2014; Malena & Chhim 2009). Although widely employed, the environments in which SAM initiatives are implemented differ from context to context, involving a range of implementation mechanisms and actors at various levels and across the sectors (UNDP 2013; Claasen & Alpin-Lardies 2010). In Africa and elsewhere in Asia and Latin America, SAM has been implemented in various ways in the course of building accountability that relies on citizens’engagement. Examples of these approaches include information campaigns (i.e., Citizen Charters and Citizens Service Centres) and budget transparency (i.e., public reporting of revenues and expenditures, budget literacy campaigns, public expenditure tracking and independent budget analysis), as well as social accountability checks (i.e., community score cards, social audits, citizen report cards, citizen satisfaction surveys, grievance redress and citizens’juries). The approaches also include different forms of consultation, such as public hearings, focus group discussions and advisory committees, participatory planning, community management, community contracting and citizen membership in decision-making bodies (Friis-Hansen & Ravnkilde 2013; Mattes 2010; World Bank 2005; 2003). Generally, SAM initiatives aim to strengthen the voices of citizens when demanding greater accountability and responsiveness directly from public officials and service providers. They emphasize the importance of the moral responsibility of public officials, politicians and service providers to be transparent and responsive to the needs of the people in terms of how they exercise authority, on the basis of the relationship between right holders and duty bearers (Friis-Hansen & Ravnkilde 2013; Khadka & Bhattarai 2012). However, the environment in which implementation of SAM initiatives takes place creates a number of limitations that inhibit both reinforcing and complementing existing accountability mechanisms. In Tanzania, for example, the SAM implementation environment is characterized by the constrained interface between CSOs (facilitators of SAM initiatives) and state institutions because the public accountability culture and its systems are relatively weak 212 Nguyahambi and Chang’a compared to the strong executive arm of the government (Green 2012; APRM 2011; Lawson & Rakner 2005). Because of the state dominance of service delivery and governance processes, the goal of meeting the objectives of SAM initiatives while at the same time overcoming state fears of citizen involvement remains a challenge. This has implications for how CSOs, as facilitators of such initiatives, can effectively manage activities to encourage and support citizens’active participation. Therefore, the benefits of the SAM approach are not automatically realized; rather, successful implementation in this regard depends on grassroots realities when encouraging citizens to exploit opportunities to shift towards active citizenship and overcome challenges that may inhibit the move. Implementation of social accountability monitoring In this section, we discuss experiences of implementing SAM initiatives in Tanzania, where the model is employed by a large number of CSOs. We provide illustrative examples from an organization called Sikika, 1 a nation-wide NGO that implements SAM in the area of health services provision, and one among the Tanzanian CSOs that have been at the forefront of ensuring that local communities in Tanzania are empowered enough to engage in all the essential matters that determine their wellbeing. Sikika’s special interest lies in promoting the active engagement of citizens with health service providers and policy makers in order to realize good governance and the accountability of public resources, especially at the lowest levels of governance (local government authorities) and service delivery (health centres) (Sikika 2015). Sikika has also implemented a SAM initiative in Kondoa District, from where we have drawn the research material informing our reflections. This includes oneto-one interviews with thirty community members from three selected villages in Kondoa District, as well as two programme officers from Sikika. In addition, we interrogated interview materials with secondary data extracted from SAM program implementation reports and observation of actual village environments, especially in the respective health service centres. In what follows, we first describe how the SAM model is perceived and implemented in the context of Tanzania in general, and from CSO and Sikika perspectives in particular. We then discuss the outcomes of SAM initiatives, once again, firstly in general and then in the particular context of Kondoa, finally pinpointing discrepancies between ideal principles and the actual implementation of SAM. Social accountability monitoring: the NGO perspective In Tanzania, NGOs consider the SAM approach a mechanism that creates an alternative civic space for citizens’participation in governance and servicedelivery processes, especially at lower levels of governance. Therefore, through implementation of SAM initiatives, NGOs tend to create a novel space for Social accountability monitoring 213 citizens’engagement that differs both from the existing everyday life in the communities and from state-organized spaces. In occupying the alternative civic space, NGOs emphasize two major elements in the promotion of active citizenship: citizens’voices in decision making and citizens’access to information. Citizens’voices in decision making are of paramount importance, especially when reflecting on the scale of the particular decision and its implication. Where decisions concern the urgent need to improve basic service delivery in a particular community, citizens need to take part in decisionmaking processes in order to influence or contribute to their outcomes. In Tanzania, the lack or insufficiency of citizens’ability to influence these processes is one of the key challenges facing marginalized community members. The challenge is especially observable in rural communities at the lowest possible levels of governance. In a context where public actors dominate community life and civic activities, the prevailing question is the extent to which citizens’voice can be integrated into decision-making processes, ultimately facilitating community members’making a difference. Through SAM initiatives, CSOs promote citizens’voices in decision making in service delivery processes, as exemplified by Sikika’s interventions, which mobilize communities at the village level. Sikika implements SAM by enabling local communities to monitor plans, budgets and implementation of health service delivery through a SAM team formed by representatives from the community. The purpose of this particular activity is to ensure that the decisions and actions of local government authorities’officials and health service workers take into account community concerns. Although the institutional environment for implementation of SAM initiatives lacks an elaborate legal base and a clear shared understanding of their status among local governance actors, Sikika’s initiatives have helped to highlight the importance of citizens’voices in expressing community demands, as noted by one SAM team member, a representative of a rural community: For a long time now, we have experienced poor services being provided by health centres and dispensaries in our communities, but it was not easy for community members to change the situation. Now, by means of participating in a SAM team, at least we have reminded health service workers and district officials about key challenges which people wish to be addressed. In Tanzania, access to information is a right guaranteed in the constitution and legislatively protected by the Access to Information Act of 2016. This is important in order to afford citizens the opportunity to participate democratically in community life. Promoting access to information has the goal of cultivating citizen acceptance and support of democratic principles such as participation, accountability and transparency. In this respect, the SAM approach provides an opportunity to create a common space wherein 214 Nguyahambi and Chang’a individual citizens may be seen and heard, and reveal themselves through arguments, discourse and action, with citizens being considered users, producers and conductors of information. In its implementation of SAM, Sikika conducted an awareness campaign in local communities about the right of access to information, its importance and ways of gaining access to it. The purpose of the awareness campaign was to cultivate a more informed populace in order to facilitate meaningful state-citizen interactions. For example, representatives of local communities formed a SAM team to conduct accountability monitoring in health services that enabled them to ascertain the evidence-based status of the service in selected health centres. This enabled local communities to dialogue with health service workers and district officials to demand accountability on identified issues including alleged misuse of money and power. Accountability monitoring activities helped to improve information supply channels. For example, one district authority clarified an identified mismatch between budget figures and the actual status of services in health centres. Villagers learned that discrepancies between budget estimates and actual expenditure often occur because they depend on disbursements from central government. Similarly, the district authority took corrective measures on practical concerns raised by the SAM team, for example, they started immediate renovation of incinerator in one of the health centres for which funds had been allocated, although somehow implementation had been delayed. Outcomes of citizens’engagement: Results from SAM initiatives The outcomes of the SAM approach in Tanzania are expected to manifest in the form of a change in citizens’habits and practices in their interaction with government officials and/or service providers, a response to the exercise of citizenship rights among community members on the one hand, and effective execution of duties among service providers on the other. It is the right of citizens to access information regarding service delivery processes, and use such information to act; at the same time, it is the duty of service providers to share such information freely and take necessary measures to comply with citizens’demands. Such new habits and practices either constitute corrective measures for governance and service delivery challenges or reinforce already existing accountability mechanisms. As elucidated by Claasen and AlpinLardies (2010), SAM as an approach to promoting active citizenship aims to empower ordinary citizens in the exercise of their inherent right to hold governments accountable for how they exercise authority. Likewise, an attempt to promote citizens’engagement focuses on influencing the ways in which citizens play their role in interactions with government officials, that is, decisionmakers and service providers (Green 2015; Malena & McNeil 2010). Thus, SAM initiatives across the country and in a range of sectors have focused on promoting three main elements: community interest and participation in Social accountability monitoring 215 service delivery activities, community willingness and confidence to voice accountability issues and adherence to formal administrative procedures at service centres. The CSOs’quest to cultivate community interests and members’participation in service delivery activities has the goal of offering greater control over the actions of service providers by the underprivileged. Community control of service delivery processes is expected to influence the outcomes of service delivery by ensuring that community demands are taken into consideration. The essence of citizens’engagement in service delivery activities is to ensure inclusive processes (UNDP 2013; Gaventa & McGee 2013) in which communities are viewed as key stakeholders (Malena & Chhim 2009). In this respect, by implementing SAM initiatives, CSOs have aimed to awaken a community spirit of participation in order to exploit individual and collective intelligence in influencing decision-making processes and service-delivery outcomes in different sectors and communities. CSOs mobilize local communities to attend village meetings that deliberate on different issues of common concern and the implementation of collective decisions. For example, in Sikika’s intervention, communities in selected villages participated in village meetings that deliberated on issues of cleanliness and the lack of pit latrines at their health centres. Furthermore, the communities went on to implement those decisions by contributing their manual work in constructing pit latrines and cleaning the health centre’s surroundings. Thus, SAM served as a mechanism that provided space for citizens’ participation in decision-making and service-delivery activities that collectively addressed the identified service challenges. At the same time, community participation in monitoring the physical status of health service provision ensured that service providers executed their duties effectively and made economic use of allocated funds according to the demands of local communities and budget provision. Development of community willingness and confidence are additional outcomes that CSOs expect to achieve from SAM initiatives. Community willingness is about the desire to take collective action to ensure the accountability of service providers, while community confidence relates to the conviction of community members that they possess the power (rights) which, if exercised, can influence or change an existing situation through collective action. Thus, willingness and confidence are considered important attributes in effective citizen participation in social, economic and political life (individually or collectively). Similarly, Friis-Hansen and Ravnkilde (2013), and Gaventa and Barrett (2010), suggest that community willingness and confidence cultivate a sense of altruism on issues of community interest, such as the need to address challenges facing public service delivery, without which it would be hardly possible to promote change in citizenship habits. The mechanism employed by CSOs to cultivate community willingness and confidence involved a sensitization campaign in local communities in order to develop enthusiasm and motivate them to voice pressing accountability 216 Nguyahambi and Chang’a dominant actor in governance, such as in Tanzania. Second, we contend that SAM is able to facilitate some changes in citizen-state relationships. Adoption of the model has stimulated villagers to take part in governance and service delivery activities due to increased access to information, which cultivates citizens’confidence and readiness to engage in interaction with service providers. The increased participation of local communities has, in turn, promoted better public service delivery, as well as making public service providers accountable and responsive to citizens’demands. Third, there are, however, some discrepancies between ideals espoused by the SAM model and its practical application; these include its implementation through the participation of only a few invited community members, the reluctance of the service providers to collaborate, community members’inability to understand the accessed information and the de-legitimation of CSO mandates by government officials. In conclusion, we argue that the successful implementation of SAM is always dependent on sufficient knowledge of existing state-citizen relations. In the Tanzanian context, this should include how to stimulate active citizen participation in order to influence decision-making processes and outcomes, especially at lower levels of governance. The implication for the design and implementation of SAM interventions, in any part of the world, is that an adequate analysis of the political, social and economic landscape in which implementation will take place is needed in order to instigate sustainable changes in the citizen-state relationship that will endure after the end of CSO facilitation; otherwise, as our analysis shows, the outcome might contradict the initial aims of improving that relationship. Essentially, social accountability interventions aim to promote the agency of citizen-based accountability initiatives that ultimately help to reinforce existing accountability mechanisms. An absence of political will at different levels of governance and inadequate official support for social accountability interventions can hamper the capacity for, and commitment to, activism among citizens and civil society actors, and discourage lobbying for the desired active citizenship. Therefore, rather than experiencing SAM as a “police work”by CSOs and citizens, it should be considered an acceptable accountability mechanism geared towards meaningful state-society interactions. Note 1Sikika is one among many Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) increasingly being recognized by the Government of Tanzania as important partners in nation building and national development, and valuable forces in promoting the qualitative and quantitative development of democracy. Sikika is a Swahili word, which literally means “to be heard”. Its formal registration as an NGO took place in 2009 as a Limited Company, guaranteed under the Company’s Act (2000). Legislatively, there is single law that governs registration of civic organizations in Tanzania. In addition to the Company’s Act (2000), there is other legislation such as the NGO Act (2002), Cooperative Societies Act (2003) and the Societies Act (1954). While Social accountability monitoring 223 the NGO Act (2002) is currently the national-level instrument governing registered NGOs, many robust advocacy civic organizations consider registering under the Company’s Act (2000) the best option because of what is said to be limited direct control and the strong-handedness of government. Since its establishment, Sikika has envisioned the realization of quality health services for all by reinforcing accountability and transparency in health resource management. Today, Sikika’s organizational purpose is to enhance health and public finance systems through SAM and advocacy at all government levels. References Ahmad, R. (2008). Governance, social accountability and the civil society. Journal of Administration and Governance (JOAAG), 3(1), 10–21. APRM (2011). Tanzania country self-assessment report. Dar es Salaam: African Peer Review Mechanism. Brock, K., McGee, R. & Gaventa, J. (Eds.). (2004). Unpacking policy: Actors, knowledge and spaces in poverty reduction. Kampala: Fountain Press. Campbell, C., Comish, F., Gibbs, A. & Scott, K. (2010). Heeding the push from below: How do social movements persuade the rich to listen to the poor? Journal of Health Psychology, 15(7), 962–971. Claasen, M. & Alpin-Lardies, C. (2010). Introduction. In M. Claasen & C. AlpinLardies (Eds.). Social accountability in Africa: Practitioner’s experiences and lessons. Cape Town: Affiliated Network for Social Accountability (ANSA –Africa). Clippinger,E.,Liang,C.J.,Murray,I.,DeBurca,G.&Fisher,A.(2014).Accountability through civic participation in post-2015 development agenda.UnitedNations Development Programme. Retrieved from www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/libra ry/MDG/Post2015-SDG/f_UNDP-NYU_Accountability-Post-2015_web.pdf Colm, A. (2008). Strengthening accountability and service delivery in Tanzania: The case for rights-based social accountability monitoring. Dar es Salaam: HakiElimu. Friis-Hansen, E. & Ravnkilde, S.M.C. (2013). Accountability mechanisms and access to public service delivery in rural Africa. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies. Gaventa, J. (2002). Introduction: Exploring citizenship, participation and accountability. IDS Bulletin, 33(2), 1–14. Gaventa, J. (2004). Towards participatory governance: Assessing the transformative possibilities. In S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds.). Participation: From tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development (pp. 25– 41). London: Zed Books. Gaventa, J. & Barrett, G. (2010). So what difference does it make? Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. London: Institute of Development Studies. Gaventa, J. & McGee, R. (2013). The impact of transparency and accountability initiatives. Development Policy Review, 31(s1), 3–28. Gaventa, J. & Valderrama, C. (1999, June). Participation, citizenship and local governance: Background note prepared for workshop on “Strengthening participation in local governance”. Institute of Development Studies. Retrieved from www.uv.es/ ~fernandm/Gaventa,%20Valderrama.pdf Green, D. (2012). From poverty to power: How active citizens and effective states can change the world. London: Oxfam International. 224 Nguyahambi and Chang’a Green, D. (2015). The Chukua Hatua accountability programme, Tanzania (Annual Programme Report). Oxford: Oxfam International. Hickey, S. & King, S. (2016). Understanding social accountability: Politics, power and building new social contracts. The Journal of Development Studies, 52(8), 1225–1240. Hyden, G., Court, J. & Mease, K. (2003). Civil society and governance in 16 developing countries (ODI, World Governance Survey Discussion Paper). Retrieved from www. odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/4098.pdf Joshi, A. (2008). Producing social accountability: The impact of service delivery reforms. IDS Bulletin, 38(6), 10–17. Joshi, A. (2013). Do they work? Assessing the impact of transparency and accountability initiatives in service delivery. Development Policy Review, 31(s1), 29–48. Joshi, A. & Houtzager, P. (2012). Widgets or watchdog? Public Management Review, 14(2), 145–162. Khadka, K. & Bhattarai, C. (2012). Sourcebook of 21 social accountability tools.Program for Accountability in Nepal. Kathmandu: PRAN/World Bank. King, S. (2015). Political capabilities for democratization in Uganda: Good governance or popular organization building? Third World Quarterly, 36(4), 741–757. Lange, S., Wallevik, H. & Kiondo, A. (2000). Civil society in Tanzania. Development Studies and Human Rights. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute. Retrieved from www. cmi.no/publications/file/988-civil-society-in-tanzania.pdf Lawson, A. & Rakner, L. (2005). Understanding patterns of accountability in Tanzania (Final Synthesis Report). Oxford: Oxford Policy Management. Lister R. (1998). Citizen in action: Citizenship and community development in a Northern Ireland context. Community Development Journal, 33(3), 226–235. Malena, C. & Chhim, K. (2009). Linking citizens and the state: An assessment of civil society contributions to good governance in Cambodia. Phnom Pehn: World Bank. Malena, C. & McNeil, M. (2010). Demanding good governance: Lessons from social accountability initiatives in Africa. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Mattes, R. (2010). Controlling power –African’views on governance, citizenship and accountability. In M. Claasen & C. Alpin-Lardies (Eds.). Social in accountability in Africa: Practitioner’s experiences and lessons (pp. 8–24). Cape Town: Affiliated Network for Social Accountability (ANSA –Africa). Mugizi, G. (2013). Interrogating social accountability in Tanzania: A case study. Rhodes University and Policy Forum. Retrieved from http://psam.org.za/research/ 1377269290.pdf Ringold, D., Holla, A., Koziol, M. & Srinivasan, S. (2012). Citizens and service delivery: Assessing the use of social accountability approaches in the human development sectors. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Shankar, S. (2010). Can social audits count? (ACARC Working Paper 09). Canberra: Australia South Asia Research Centre. Retrieved from https://crawford.anu.edu.au/a cde/asarc/pdf/papers/2010/WP2010_09.pdf Sikika (2013). Ripoti ya Ufuatiliaji na Uwajibikaji kwa Jamii (SAM), Halmashauri ya Wilaya ya Kondoa (Dodoma). Dar es Salaam: Timu ya SAM Kondoa na Shirika la Sikika. Sikika (2015). Annual report 2014. Monitoring and Evaluation Department. Dar es Salaam: Sikika Company Limited. Sikika (2016). Ripoti ya Ufuatiliaji na Uwajibikaji kwa Jamii (SAM), Halmashauri ya Wilaya ya Kondoa (Dodoma). Dar es Salaam: Timu ya SAM Kondoa na Shirika la Sikika. Social accountability monitoring 225 UNDP (2010). Fostering social accountability: From principle to practice (Guidance Note). Oslo: United Nations Development Programme. UNDP (2013). Reflections on social accountability: Catalyzing democratic governance to accelerate progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. New York: United Nations Development Programme. World Bank (2003). World development report 2004: Making services work for poor people. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (2005). The effectiveness of World Bank support for community-based anddriven development: An OED evaluation. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (2007). Social accountability sourcebook. Washington, DC: World Bank. 226 Nguyahambi and Chang’a