SYMPOSIUM ONHUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE AT THE CROSSROADS

Melani Cammett

Political Science

Watson Institute for International Studies

Brown University

March 2, 2013

Political Consequences of Non-State Provision

Concept Dimension

Access

Equity

Sustainability

Accountability

Ability 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-dimensions

Accountability 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 Capacity

State 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