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

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 and Alex Shankland

Development Policy Review, 2023, vol. 41, issue S1

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.

Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12683

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:devpol:v:41:y:2023:i:s1:n:e12683

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0950-6764

Access Statistics for this article

Development Policy Review is currently edited by David Booth

More articles in Development Policy Review from Overseas Development Institute Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().