SYMPOSIUM ONHUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE AT THE CROSSROADS

Melani CammettPolitical ScienceWatson Institute for International StudiesBrown University

March 2, 2013

Political Consequences of Non-State Provision

Concept Dimension

AccessEquity

Sustainability

AccountabilityAbility of citizens to hold providers responsible for the experience and quality of service provision

State capacity State capacity to provide, finance and/or regulate welfare

Why varied political consequences?Characteristics of NSPs

Dimension Range

Level of personalization Formal/rule-based ↔ informal/personalized

Locus of operation Local ↔ international

Profit orientation Not-for-profit ↔ for-profit

Eligibility criteria Inclusive ↔ exclusive

Why varied political consequences?Modes of state-NSP relations

State Capacity to Deliver and/or Regulate Social Welfare Low High

NSP Capacity to Finance and/or Deliver Social Welfare

Low

Appropriation (i.e., NSPs control access to state resources through brokerage, patronage, credit-claiming)

State Domination (i.e., state control over financing and delivery of services)

High

Substitution (i.e., NSPs take over when state does not perform or provide)

Co-production (i.e., joint financing and/ or delivery of services by state and NSPs) or Delegation (i.e., authority granted to NSPs to finance and/ or deliver services)

Example: Non-state provision of health care in Lebanon

Affiliations of health clinics and dispensaries in Lebanon(2008 estimates)

Focus: Sectarian providers in Lebanon

The nexus of social welfare and sectarianism

State v. NSP capacity (esp. Hezbollah, Future Movement, etc.)

Provider motivations: Charitable and political/community-policing

Lebanese Forces leader: “We know we need to help our supporters, especially now that we are constituting ourselves into a real political party,”

2001 poll in Lebanon: “What were the two most important reasons for your vote in the 2000 national elections?” Services provided and social activities of the candidate:

27.09% most important reason 23.46% second most important

What’s at stake?

Non-state actors & welfare regimes What types of providers – public,

private, non-state – provide the best quality of care and why?

The impact of welfare provision by actors with political agendas? When and how, if at all, does service

provision Islamists & others shape political behavior?

Consequences for equity of access, national integration, etc.

Implications for international donors/NGOs: Working with local political actors,

“terrorist” groups, etc.

Thank you

Political Consequences of Non-State Provision: Access

Concept Dimension Sub-dimensions

Access

Equity

- Equity of access to social welfare by gender, ethnicity, age, religion, wealth, partisanship, geography, etc. - Equity of access to high quality of social welfare by gender, ethnicity, age, religion, wealth, partisanship, geography, etc.

Sustainability

- Duration over time of service provision - Stability and renewability of financial support for services - Cultural appropriateness of services - Social embeddedness of services in community

Political Consequences of Non-State Provision: Accountability

Concept Dimension Sub-dimensionsAccountability Ability of Citizens to

Hold Providers Responsible for the Experience and Quality of Service Provision

- Existence of liability mechanisms for services rendered or not supplied - Rule-based v. personalized procedures for lodging complaints and receiving compensation

Political Consequences of Non-State Provision: State Capacity

Concept Dimension Sub-dimensions

State CapacityState Capacity to Provide, Finance and/or Regulate Welfare

- Human capital (i.e., number of staff, education levels of staff) - Spending per capita - Proportion of total delivery of social welfare services - Quality of services provided - Effectiveness of regulation of service provision

Non-State Welfare Provision in the Global South

Increase in NGOs in Selected Countries in the Global South, 1980-2008

Beyond NGOs: Varieties of NSPs . . .

1980

1990 2000 2010

Argentina 2,000 (1994) 15,800

(2012) Azerbaijan 300 2,700-3,700

(2011) India

20,000-30,000 (1989)

3.3 million (2008)

Ghana 80 700 1,300 4,772

Kazakhstan 6,000 36,815 (2011)

Kenya 250-400 4000 6,000 Tanzania 25 137 3,000

(2001) 5,300

Russia 30-40

(1987) 275,000 450,000-600,000 (2005)

Types of Non-State Providers (NSPs)

Formal Informal

Private Sector Organizations

Secular NGOs

Ethnic/sectarian organizations

Faith-based organizations

Community-based

organizations Informal brokers

Family and friendship networks

International MNCs INGOs Transnational

ethnic organizations and networks

International church-based

charities -- --

Transnational family networks,

migrant remittances

Domestic Domestic for- profit

firms Domestic NGOs

Ethnic and sectarian

political groups Local FBOs,

churches

Village or neighborhood-

based associations

Naya Netas in India, Private

providers in FSU

Family and friendship networks