Opening Up Development-

1
Draft-1/20/15
Opening Up Development-
Towards a More Open, Collaborative and Inclusive Paradigm
Bjorn-Soren Gigler1, World Bank
Katherine H. Mann, Georgetown University
Abstract:
Enhancing transparency and accountability mechanisms that directly empower citizens to better
participate in decision-making processes of government and international donors is an imperative
to achieving better and more sustainable development results on the ground. Free and open
access to information and development data has the potential to empower citizens to better hold
governments and international donors accountable. Rapid innovations in information and
communication technologies provide unique opportunities to democratize development by
breaking down barriers to participation and by broadening the reach of development programs,
including traditionally excluded groups. The emerging Open Development paradigm has the
potential to be a real game changer for development by making government and donor
institutions more open, responsive and inclusive. However, the real impact is still to be seen.
There are critical challenges and obstacles to connecting the transparency, technology, and
responsiveness. The article investigates to what extent such a paradigm shift is under way. It
provides concrete case studies of open governance programs that enhance the transparency and
accountability of development agencies and foster the collaboration among all development
actors in order to achieve better development outcomes and enhance the well-being of the poor.
Can open governance approaches facilitated by innovations in technologies help to make
development programs more open, responsive and inclusive to citizens’ needs?
1 Senior Governance Specialist, Governance and Inclusive Institutions, World Bank. The views presented are
those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of the World Bank or its executive directors, or
the countries that they represent. The author can be contacted at: bgigler@worldbank.org

2
I. Introduction
Open government, transparency, social media, new technologies: these are the hype words of the
moment. Many experts are currently discussing the transformational potential of open
government programs and new technologies to enhance accountability from governments and
international donors. However, the discussion generally focuses on the potential rather than the
realized impact of openness facilitated by new technologies on improved governance and socio-
economic development. An Open Development approach is emerging; however there exists an
important lack in terms of its theoretical underpinnings and the empirical evidence about the
impact of such an approach on development outcomes. Thus, a series of important questions
remain unanswered.
How do we define this new paradigm? What is truly open and collaborative? To what extent can
the openness agenda strengthen existing governance and the social accountability process and
result in meaningful changes the relationship between citizens, governments and donors? How
does this new approach help to deliver and enhance the quality of public services? Which entities
should drive this process: governments, donors or civil society? What is the specific role that
innovations in technologies play in fostering such a new approach to development? Ultimately,
a key question emerges: Is Open Development a new paradigm or is it just old wine in new
glasses?
The main objective of the paper is to contribute to this current discussion by (i) developing a
theoretical framework for Open Development, (ii) investigating the role new technologies can
play in shortening the route to accountability, and (iii) presenting several case studies that apply
the approach in praxis. To address these questions, the paper will have the following format:
first, it will review the literature on transparency, technology, and accountability. Secondly, the
paper will develop an Open Development framework: the principles, the components, and the
stages of the model. The framework applies the public sector literature about ‘co-produced
government to international development. Using the framework, the paper will also examine the
concept of citizen-centered aid effectiveness; how can the emerging Open Development
approach be applied to aid effectiveness? Additionally, the paper will examine the “how to”
factors of accountability reforms and the enabling factors and barriers of implementing an open
development approach. Directly on technology, the paper will analyze its role as an embedded
facilitator for policy reforms towards a more open, collaborative and inclusive development
approach. Adopting the Open Development framework, the paper will examine various case
studies, such as Mapping for Results, Open Aid Partnership, and ICT-enabled citizen feedback
programs, to investigate the on the ground impact of the paradigm. Finally, the paper concludes
with early lessons learnt and the challenges and obstacles these Open Development programs are
facing in praxis.
II. An Emerging New Paradigm?
This new paradigm starts with the hypothesis that enhanced openness and accountability to
improve the delivery and quality of public services. The poor disproportionally depend on public
services compared to other income groups. The World Development Report 2004 Making

3
Services Work for Poor People, emphasized citizen wellbeing and that poor people in particular
are critically dependent on governments’ performance; they are particularly vulnerable to
governmental inefficiency and the abuse of public office (World Bank, 2004). The poor depend
on governments for services; however, government’s lack of accountability to deliver effective
and quality services continues. Ultimately, improving service delivery and the quality of
accountability is critical to addressing poverty (Joshi and Moore, 2004).
Open Development is based on a political commitment to openness, accountability and goes
beyond the mere provision of open data sets to collective and collaborative governance (Pradhan
and Odugbemi, 2011). The initial step however is the opening of data and improved access to
information, accountability, a vertical distribution of information, and the greater participation of
citizens in the public processes. It creates a “networked” society and a space for horizontal
collaboration through this development (Smith, Elder and Emdon, 2011). Enabled through free,
open, and easy access to development information and data, Open Development aims to
empower all stakeholders in the development process to participate in a meaningful manner in
development programs.
Transparency is, however, only the initial step towards accountability, transplanting obscured
and opaque processes to public scrutiny. Too often an automatic mechanism that transparency
produces accountability is being assumed. Experiences have demonstrated that enhanced
transparency does not necessary lead to improved accountability (Kuriyan, et al, 2011). At the
same time improved openness facilitated through ICTs can reduce the distance between
governments and citizens creating multiple flows of information and translating into a short path
to accountability (Wittemyer, et. al, 2014). Openness however remains often contentious
depending on the type of licensing agreement; open data conflicts over intellectual property
rights and free commercial access and reuse of the data (Stranburg et al. 2014).
In “The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives”, Gaventa and McGee (2013)
review the relative success of transparency and accountability initiatives. The authors examine
the greater access to data enables the push for accountability coupled with the government push
from government openness to development outcomes. Critics highlight that this agenda is a
reaction to the pressure from the public, particularly in donor countries, that development
agencies demonstrate greater results, rather than being based on a broader effort to change the
way development programs are being designed. The authors note that the evidence does not truly
demonstrate impact. Furthermore, globally, projects are unevenly distributed. Also, the key for
both supply and demand side success is context, from democratization levels to capabilities.
Examining the current evidence, assumptions underlie these statements and these assertions fail
to discuss the negative side to transparency and accountability initiatives. Finally, for future
determinations of success, “there are synergies to be gained from developing more cross-cutting
strategies and networks across these initiatives; and from an impact assessment point of view, far
more comparative and holistic analysis” (Gaventa and McGee, 2013, p. 27).
At the center of this new paradigm is how to address the struggle for accountability and how to
respond to increased demand for more voice and participation in development for citizens, as
highlighted by the Arab Spring. Fox (2014) asserts the importance of bringing supply and
demand sides together: “Social accountability strategies try to improve institutional performance

4
by bolstering both citizen engagement and the public responsiveness of states and corporations”
(Fox, 2014, p. 7). Thus, social accountability is citizen-led oversight. Again, the issue is
verification of this concept with tangible results rather than theory. For evaluation, a disconnect
exists between top down and bottom up initiative. Bottom up monitoring lacks strength. At the
same time, growing research indicates local elite capture of top down initiatives. Fox also goes
into the differences between tactical and strategic approaches to social accountability. The
tactical approach to social accountability has a narrow focus: “localized, voice-only, tactical
interventions test extremely weak versions of [social accountability] (Fox, 2014, p.23). The locus
is only demand side and constrained to the local level. In contrast, the strategic approach
leverages a broader and amplified scope, such as complementing the demand and supply side
capacities (Fox, 2014). Fung and Wright (2003) examine the variations of participatory
democracy; connecting citizens with governments to create empowered participatory
governance.
Rapid innovations of technologies, particularly the spread of the mobile phone, are relatively
recent phenomena and add a new dimension to the governance agenda. By harnessing the new
ICTs, easing access to information and opening the development process, can we democratize
development (Anstey, 2011)? Open Development leverages technology to broaden and shorten
the route of accountability of international donors. Can the use of ICTs enhance the
responsiveness of donors and governments to citizens needs and close the feedback loop (Gigler
2012b)? In the end, how new is this concept? In the 1990s, the development literature argued that
development programs improved greatly with local and contextual embedded participation and
civic engagement; local voices are key (Chambers, 1995, 1998; Holland and Blackburn and
Hickey and Mohan, 2004). If these concepts existed in the 1990s, is Open Development a true
paradigm shift? To create meaningful change and sustainable impact, technology and
participation should be used in tandem. Open Development has the potential to broaden and
progress the development conversation (Gigler, 2012b).
Open Development faces multiple challenges. The process does not occur in a vacuum. What are
the major barriers to this process? Can this openness bridge the accountability gap among
stakeholders (Gigler, 2012b)? Ultimately, who will benefit from this openness or will it further
exclude marginalized groups? Can this openness lead to more effective and inclusive
development or translated into helping traditionally marginalized groups? Essentially, how do
these concepts and themes link with actual development results? Where is the evidence of a
tangible impact? What is the role that new technologies can play in promoting such a new Open
Development approach?
The following section, will lay out an open development framework that bring both the demand
and supply side of enhanced governance and accountability together. It furthermore, investigates
to what extent innovations in new technologies can serve as a link between the social
accountability programs that aim to enhance citizen voices and citizen participation in decision-
making processes and accountability and governance reforms initiated by government and
international donors agencies. It needs to be stressed however that the use of ICTs cannot be
seen in a void; local environment have to be taken into account. Open development approaches
need to be embedded into a much broader political economy context of government/donor
reforms, social movements, citizen’s movements, and civic engagement.

5
III. Towards a Open Development Framework
Open Development principles
Leading to the framework: what is the Open Development model? The following guiding
principles structure the conversation and the model’s development: i) free, open, and easy access
to development information and data as a global public good ii) it is citizen-centered where
citizens become active agents iii) based on a distributive and decentralized community networks
(Smith, Elder, and Emdon, 2011); iv) enabled through technology v) and leverages multi-
stakeholder coalitions for change, these include coalitions within the government, between
governments and donors, civil society and citizens, and with the private sector (Pradhan and
Odugbemi, 2011) vi) has an iterative and adaptive approach that incorporates near real time
citizen feedback in project design and implementation (Bovaird, 2007).
Figure 1: Bridging the Gap Between the Supply and Demand Sides of Accountability
Source: Adapted from Gigler, 2013
Accompanying the guiding principles are the framework’s central components and actors. The
major components and aspects of this model are a) transparency, b) participation, c)
collaboration, and d) empowerment. It moves from a closed and opaque world to one with
transparency and one where: “sunlight is the best disinfectant. We need a lot of sunlight in this
troubled world” (Walters, 2012).
Supply Side- Towards free, open and easy access to development data and information
As shown in figure 1, the major actors of the emerging open development approach come from
both the supply and the demand side of governance and accountability. As shown on the left side
of figure 1, on the supply side, or push side, are the institutional processes of governments and
donor reforms. Open Data programs play a critical role in enhancing the transparency of both

6
governments and international donors. The emphasis of these programs is to enable citizens and
the public in general to have free, open and easy access to key development data and information
A key aspect of open data initiatives is that the use of data should not be restricted in any means
and that users are empowered both to access and reuse the obtained data for both commercial and
non-commercial uses without any legal restrictions. An example of a far-reaching reform in
terms of opening up development data is the World Bank’s Open Data Initiative
(www.data.worldbbank.org). Since April 2010 the World Bank has for the first time opened
up key development data and made available to the public 7,000 development indicators. It
allows users access to a wide range of information, such as project data and indicators. The
indicators are free and available in a user-friendly format to download, analyze and re-use
without any restrictions (World Bank Group, 2012).
However, the supply side of these open governance programs should move beyond the simple
release of open data to provide users with easily comprehensible and manageable data. The
design of these programs has to move away from an organizational perspective to user’s needs.
At the moment, programs often are not user-centered; programs should be informed by real
information and data needs of civil society and citizens rather than development in isolation
(Barder, 2011a). The aforementioned program, among others to be discussed in a later section,
indicates an important institutional and cultural change is necessary so that these initiatives have
a larger impact on institutional reform. First, so that these programs can be scaled up and
mainstreamed into donor operations. Also, in the long-term, these programs should not only be
reactive to accountability demands from the outside, however should be part of much more
comprehensive accountability and governance reforms within governments and international
donors. These initiatives have the potential to become part of a much broader institutional
change process towards a citizen-centered development approach.
Demand side- Strengthen Social Accountability mechanisms
Simultaneously to enhancing the free and open access to development data and information, it is
critical to strengthen the demand side of accountability processes. There is a renewed demand for
civil voice and participation in the development processes. With right to information laws and
civil-society led programs, citizens are making more requests to engage with the data, to
participate in political decision-making processes and to act up the information provided. The big
shift is that citizens are not only passive recipients and consumers of data and development
information; citizens also play a role in increasingly making their voices heard and also to take
the lead in the generation of data. For example, a current initiative that focuses on the demand-
side of open data and emphasizes the critical role that citizen generated data play for opening up
the development process, is the Big Development Data Shift initiatives by CIVICUS. The
platform places citizens at the center of monitoring and accountability. The program aims to
leverage a multi-stakeholder platform to develop citizen generated and context centric data with
a global framework for comparison and empowerment. The program builds on existing formats
and standardizations, but the data comes from citizens rather than governments or donor agencies
(CIVICUS, DataShift, 2014). It is critical to see open data and governance programs in the
broader context of existing social accountability mechanisms. Experiences form the Middle East
and around the world have shown that citizens and civic movements increasingly are demanding
to have open and free access to key information, to make their voices heard and to fully
participate in political decision-making processes of governments and international donors.

7
For Open Development to be successful, it is critical to strengthen both the capacity of civil
society and citizen groups to access, process, and evaluate government and donor information
and data as well as the capacity of donor agencies and government institutions to liberate data
and effectively respond to requests and feedback from citizens A key challenge within this
process is how to strengthen the informational capabilities of citizens and particularly the poor
communities to translate the improved access to information into concrete steps to enhance their
economic and social well-being. Civil society organizations play a central role in this process,
since they can act as infomediaries facilitating improved access to information for citizens and
enhancing their human capabilities to process and act upon the information and data obtained. At
the same time, donor agencies should assist governments to strengthen their technical capacity
within key institutions to effectively respond to feedback received from citizens. At the same
time government and donors alike should establish clear internal business processes across
different ministries or departments so that they are able to engage in a meaningful way in a
dialogue with citizens. Thus, the demand-side and the supply side of open development
programs can in fact not be separated from each other, however to be strengthened
simultaneously.
Linking the Demand-Side with the Supply-side through ICT Innovations
As shown in figure 1, ICT innovations have the potential to connect the demand and supply side
of social accountability and governance reforms with each other. New technologies can under
certain conditions be leveraged to become key enablers of institutional change as well as
strengthen the capacity of citizens and civic groups to make their voices heard in policy debates.
On the supply side technology innovations have the potential to be disruptive inside government
institutions or international donors and amplify existing reforms towards enhanced openness,
transparency and responsiveness. In principle, the nature of recent technological innovations,
based on the open source movement, is highly democratic and collaborative. A key characteristic
of such open source technologies is that there is no central node, rather platforms are based on a
truly open, distributive, and decentralized system where by each element can facilitate certain
aspects of the projects. Technology can contribute towards a flat, open, and more democratic
structure. For instance, the Open Street Map community has demonstrated the power of such a
distributive and collaborative networking in the development of interactive maps in response to
natural disasters such as crisis mapping in Haiti, Pakistan, Chile and many other places. Another
aspect of such a crowdsourcing approach is the collective action of thousands of volunteers that
analyze processes, evaluate data, and contribute to a common and open platform that can be
reused by any user.
These technology innovations demonstrated that it is possible to open-up the development
process whereby citizens become active producers of development data instead of passive
recipients of official development information and statistics. These experiences from the crisis
mapping and Open Street Maps have furthermore demonstrated that they can lead to a generative
process of open collaboration between volunteer technical communities and development experts
within international donor agencies. In this sense such an approach, based on citizen-generated
data and crowdsourcing, implies an important cultural change towards a genuine partnership
among civil society, the private sector, grassroots groups, international donors and governments.
Critical to applying crowdsourcing approaches to international development is the recognition

8
that knowledge and experiences are many times vastly distributed among all stakeholders and
not concentrated inside donor agencies alone.
New technologies and the principles of user-centered design and crowdsourcing, foster the
rethinking of development programs towards putting citizen needs at the center of the programs.
If technology innovations are closely embedded into a much broader governance reform agenda
they can present unprecedented opportunities to closing the accountability gap by connecting
citizens directly to decision makers of international donors and governments.
At the same time, there are significant differences and challenges for applying such an approach
at the local level depending on the distinct sociopolitical context and enabling environment in
each developing country. Often, technology only plays a minor role in determining whether open
governance initiatives succeed in a certain context; however, regulatory, political, social, and
cultural aspects represent important barriers to determining whether development processes can
in fact become more open, democratic, and inclusive. To advance in this open development
agenda, it is critical to engage into more systematic and long-term social accountability processes
and to strengthen multi-stakeholder coalitions that support more systematic reforms. Civil
society organizations play a central role in such a process. They are critical ‘infomediaries’
between governments/ international donors and citizens and thus can facilitate improved
dialogues between policy-makers and citizens. They furthermore, they can play a critical role in
strengthening the capacity of poor communities to access and use of development information
and data. The private sector plays a central role in developing specific technology solutions, like
apps or open access platforms and data visualizations that empower a broad base of users to use
and apply the information in their daily development challenges on the ground. The
accountability loop can only be closed if all actors collaborate and contribute their individual
expertise within a more collaborative and prolonged process of governance reforms.
Moving Beyond Openness to Collaborative Governance
After discussing the principles and components, a critical question remains: how to move beyond
improved openness and transparency to a more collaborative and inclusive model of governance?
Furthermore, to what extent can the emerging Open Development approach leverage new
technologies to move towards a collaborative governance model and to empower citizens to play
a proactive and critical role within the development process. The Open Development framework
inverts the development model to placing citizens at the center of the process and aims to
establish a relationship of trust between citizens, governments, and donors which builds the basis
for co-designing programs (Pradhan and Odugbemi, 2011).
Building on the concept of open data, which aims to enhance government accountability through
publically publishing government data. With this data available, citizens have the potential to
engage directly with government decisions. Of course, contentious issues arise from publically
available information and citizen capacity to handle this data. Also, differences in capacity levels
persist between a developed and developing country (“ICTD 2012”, 2012).
Ultimately, however there is a new vision with all stakeholders involved in the process:
collective governance. Enabled by rapid developments in data technology, stakeholders have the
potential and opportunity for informed decisions. Technology can under certain conditions

9
enable all stakeholders to make their voices be heard. Thus Open Development is a type of
collective or collaborative governance (Pradhan and Odugbemi, 2011). The following section
lays out the different stages of the Open Development Framework and applies the public sector
reform literature on ‘co-production’ to the openness agenda
Stages of the Approach
The process of implementing Open Development can be broken down into four stages which
progressively close the gap between the supply (donors/government) and demand (citizens/civil
society) sides, leveraging the technology available (figure 2). Adapting from the Loch Ness
model of government (Gigler, Bailur, and Anand, 2014), the first step in the process is
‘transparent development’. In this initial stage, donors proactively open up development data and
information on donor activities through open data and transparency initiatives. As only the
beginning of the process, this is just a one way flow of information rather than a two-way
interaction (Gigler, Bailur, and Anand, 2014).
The second stage is ‘participatory development.’ This moves beyond mere transparent data sets
“toward fostering the full and meaningful participation of citizens” with governments and donors
(Gigler, Bailur, and Anand, 2014, p. 8). In this case, ICTs garner feedback from citizens so
governments and donors can respond effectively. The third stage is ‘collaborative development.’
Citizens move beyond responding and participating in programs to becoming involved in
developing and designing the programs throughout all phases of the program’s cycle. At this
stage, the two-way flow of information is firmly established. Donor and international agencies
act more as facilitators for citizen participation; however, limitations continue as the main
Figure 2: Stages of the Open Development Framework
Source: Adapted from the Loch Ness Model by Gigler, Bailur, and Anand (2014)
decision-making endures with policymakers rather than citizens. Also, important information
asymmetries between decision-makers and citizens often remain (Gigler, Bailur, and Anand,
2014).

10
The final stage, as defined in the introduction is ‘co-produced development': Ostrom (1996,
p.1073) defines co-production as “…the process through which inputs used to provide a good or
service are contributions by individuals who are not ‘in’ the same organization.” Developing
from this definition, Joshi and Moore further reﬁne the concept: “we use a more exact term –
institutionalized co-production – to refer to organisational arrangements, which implicate clients
in effective service delivery, on a sustained, regular basis. Institutionalised co-production is the
provision of public services (broadly defined, to include regulation) through regular, long-term
relationships between state agencies and organised groups of citizens, where both make
substantial resource contributions” (Joshi and Moore, 2004, pp. 39-40).
Furthermore, “Coproduction does not simply involve managing relationships between one
provider and a set of service users…Once clients and community activists become engaged in
the coplanning and codelivery of services alongside professional staff, the networks created may
behave as complex adaptive systems, with very different dynamics from provider-centric
services” (Bovaird, 2007, p. 848). Through this interaction, government provides quality public
services while building citizen and government capacity over time (Mitlin, 2008). Thus, co-
production aims to develop a more effective system of quality and delivery where users have a
two-way dialogue with the providers and movement towards a collective model rather than a
dependent provider—client model (Needham, 2008).
Yet, there are constraints on co-production. Most of the application of co-production focuses on
project delivery rather than incorporating the larger issues of power redistribution between
governments and citizens. Co-production enables citizen engagement to improve the state’s
accountability and governance of the country (Mitlin, 2008). When citizens are the drivers of
change, co-production becomes a political issue which can question the balances within
democracy types and blur boundaries between the various entities involved in policy (Bovaird,
2007).
A key question however remains: Can this creation of a collaborative and jointly developed
development produce more effective, efficient, and better quality aid? To address this critical
issue, the following section will discuss the ‘how to’ of reforms, analyze the sequencing of open
governance programs and discuss the enabling environment for such a process to take place.
The “How To” of Reforms
The framework lays out the main aspects of the Open Development approach, but how would a
process towards opening up development occur? The first and critical step is the political
commitment of key policymakers to the core principles of openness, transparency and
accountability. Alongside the opening up of development information and data a culture and
institutional change towards more collaborative governance needs to take place within
governments and donor agencies. In particular, there needs to be a change of incentives and for
policymakers, government officials and development experts to support collaborative
development approaches. It is important that such an approach combines both a high level
political commitment from the top and the support of technical experts to support the
implementation of concrete open development programs. Herby it is essential that policymakers
gradually recognize that collaborative governance models can be effective mechanisms to

11
address development challenging For example, in the case of access to information laws it is
both critical to have the support of senior policymakers so the laws can be passed by parliaments,
however it is equally important that government institutions are also applying the law in practice
in their daily interactions with citizens. It is furthermore important to demonstrated the improved
access to information can lead to key improvements in development outcomes, for instance in
the improved delivery of education or health services.
The second step is the recognition that citizen generated and crowdsourced data can be a
powerful tool in decision-making. Through triangulation of official and crowdsourced data,
policymakers and donors improve governments and donors to take well-informed decisions. Also
crowdsourced data offers a reality check or independent evaluation from the field. For instance,
crowdsourced data can function as an independent verification to check the satisfaction of
service and aid beneficiaries. In particular, this type of data generated by community-based
monitoring programs can help identify the quality of services and projects. Going beyond simple
access to the data, it brings citizen satisfaction into the implementation and adaptation of
programs. For such a process to work, governments and donors however have to be proactive in
listening and engaging with citizens and to recognize the important value citizen generated data
has for taking decisions.
In a third step is it is critical to form multi-stakeholder coalitions in order to gain the necessary
support for the reforms within and outside of government and donors. It is critical to highlight
that governments and donors are not homogeneous entities and that it is it key to identify reform-
minded champions within key institutions, who can provide the necessary political support fot eh
reforms. Coalitions within government, as well as coalitions with external actors (such as donors,
the private sector, and civil society) align incentives and overlap the individual actor’s interests
with the common objectives of the coalition. The same can be said with donors: coalitions with
various stakeholders further the collaborative development agenda. Within the coalitions, the
champions need to be strengthened. Finally, with the free flow of data, there can be better
decision-making across internal departments and ministries. These internal and external
coalitions can be leveraged to assist and further internal reforms.
At the same time, enabling factors provide the context for institutional change. On the supply
side, there are both internal and external drivers of change and movement towards this co-
produced, Open Development model. Internally, institutional change will take time. It will be a
long and sustained cultural change towards this Open Development model. Another enabling
factor on the government’s side is a crisis of legitimacy with protests from citizen movements to
have a greater voice and influence. Governance reforms tend to be a reaction to those instances.
Many of these initiatives develop in response to increased civil society pressure and movements.
Several countries, as the Arab Spring demonstrated, face a severe legitimacy crisis; countries
such as Tunisia and Morocco are embracing open and accountable government in order to
embrace the demands from citizens and civic movements. The Open Development approach
aims to bring the supply and demand side of social accountability mechanisms together to an
integrated approach and thus to bridge the accountability gap between citizens and governments/
donors (Pradhan and Odugbemi, 2011).

12
Enhanced by multiple data flows is a decentralization of decision-making. For governments, this
indicates that there is a greater flow between national governments and lower levels. A critical
aspect of an Open Development approach is a decentralized network where solutions can
originate from any part of the network. A powerful historical example is the sea faring
navigation of latitude and longitude. For years the ability to measure latitude and longitude at sea
eluded the experts on navigation and geography. Ultimately the breakthrough came from outside
the expert community: a clockmaker (The OpenLearn Team, 2007). Questioning the experts in
the field, this decentralized network allows anyone to voice creative solutions to development
problems.
Strengthening citizen capacity is the key to the demand side. Civil society organizations play a
critical role in this collaborative governance framework as infomediaries and strengthening
awareness and participation. Civil society is strengthening from all sides; there is pull from both
citizens within donor countries as well the citizens in the recipient countries. Donor citizens
demand more transparency, and accountability from development aid. With scarce resources for
development aid, donor citizens pressure for effectiveness. From both sides, civil society
organizations hold donors and agencies more accountable. Various mechanisms, including
citizen scorecards, participatory budgeting, and redress tools strengthen the demand side for
good governance—for governments and donors. However, the initiatives run parallel rather than
in conjunction. Programs exist at the grassroots level and at the donor/government levels yet
there is little coordination between them.
Technology as an Enabling Factor?
How effective are ICTs in this paradigm? To what extent are these ICTs transformational,
democratizing, and enhance networking and collaboration? Technology plays an integral role
cementing the various elements of Open Development. With technology, the knowledge on
development is more open, available, and horizontal. It connects the various stakeholders and
enables effectual two-way connections and responsiveness. However, technology has its own
constraints, including an unused website intended for feedback. Moreover, what are the
informational capabilities of different stakeholders. Thus, to what extent can technology be
transformational?
In general, technology can trigger and accelerate the process of institutional reform and change.
It strengthens citizen voices and the overall demand side of the equation. In particular it reduces
the time-lag in terms of access to information. Crowdsourcing enabled through technology
enables policy-makers, citizen and the general public to access to information in almost real-
time. A frequently quoted example is the story of Mohamed Bouazizi, a street vendor from
Tunisia who burned himself on December 17, 2010 in protest of government corruption; when
the video was posted online the news spread around globe at an incredible speed (Fisher, 2011).
This was only possible with the advent of new technology. New technologies played a key role
in Tunisia to democratize the access to information and to enable citizens and civil society to
form strong networks and collaborate to promote governance reforms. Technology permits large
numbers of citizens to collaborate online and develop collective action; it brings vertical and
horizontal collaboration. It reduces the geographic distance to collaboration and enables instant
feedback.

13
Technology furthermore enhances the display of data from governments. Many governments
simply present data intended for an expert audience rather than general consumption. With
mapping and data visualization, it has the potential to democratize data. For example, from
geocoding projects to see exactly where donors are funding projects to citizen feedback
programs (Gigler and Innovations in Governance Team, 2013). In this digestible format, the data
is much more accessible to a broader audience, particularly in places with low literacy rates and
formal education. Technology lowers the costs, it has become ubiquitous and it can harness real
time data. Finally, a vast amount of data can be collected and sorted rapidly.
Moving to donors, technology plays a role in the traceability of aid down the chain of project
delivery: from the donor funds to the direct project execution (aidinfo, 2010). In this way,
technology helps to follow the money and citizens report directly on funding. Furthering the
traceability of aid, is the ability for donor country citizens to view the allocation of aid while
beneficiary state citizens can see the execution and breakdown of that aid (Barder, 2011a).
For instance, the World Bank’s Open Development Technology Alliance (ODTA) aims to
enhance connections between project teams at the World Bank with the rich ICT experiences of
citizens, civil society, academia, foundations and the private sector in order to enhance the
delivery and quality of basic services to the poor (Gigler, 2011c). The program fully
acknowledges that innovations and development solutions can come from any source, whether
that is inside donor institution or from citizens, grassroots innovators or the private sector who
are often much closer to specific development challenges on the ground (Gigler, 2011c).
Transformations are taking place across the globe as social media and technology come to the
fore; new technology mobilizes and gives a microphone to citizen voices. New voices of
formally marginalized communities can participate in the government’s actions: “Governments
can share what they are doing, solicit views on the budget, and ask their help in monitoring its
implementation. Citizens can now share their feedback on the quality of services they receive,
and get help resolving problems” (Gigler, 2011c). Technology enables the Open Development
paradigm; however, the practical impact of technology remains elusive. Again, the experts
devote significant discussion to the potential of technology to be the connection among
stakeholders but how has this scenario actually played out in case studies?
Similarly, the Open and Smart Paradigm (OSI) presents the concept of smart services which are
client-centered and driven within OSI. From services (the quality, responsiveness, monitoring
and feedback) to infrastructure, there is a potential for the development of performance and
smart growth. Through ICTs, this potential is feasible; ICTs enable a new smarter infrastructure
that can enhance services across sectors. Regardless of location, talent can be harnessed from any
point on the globe in this network and enhance productivity. Also, OSI can be implemented in
any size country. With crowdsourcing, as in the Loch Ness model described here, the technology
collaboration in real time and on a significantly larger scale than before. Not only will it include
citizens and governments, but also the private sector as social intermediaries on the demand side.
Thus, these social intermediaries can develop demand side capabilities; it is not just the question
of open data but the capability of citizens to use this data (Hanna, 2012a.; Hanna, 2012b; Gigler,
Bailur, and Anand, 2014).

14
IV. Citizen-Centered Aid Effectiveness
The question arises, what would citizen-centered aid effectiveness look like? How can we apply
the model to aid effectiveness? Can aid effectiveness and state governance be strengthened at the
same time?
The various accountabilities should be taken into account. Both horizontal and vertical
accountability need to be strengthened together. Horizontal accountability is the checks and
balances within and among government institutions. Parliaments act as a political counterbalance
to the executive branch. Similarly, supreme audit institutions, with independent review of public
accounts, act as financial checks on the central government. With decentralization develops local
government accountability. Vertical accountability, the accountability between governments and
citizens, can be held through direct elections. Non-state actors such as the private sector, the
media, and civil society also play a role in holding the government accountable. The private
sector can request government accountability. An independent media can hold governments
accountable as well as inform and mobilize citizens. At the same time, the local context and
access to information laws must be taken into account; is there an enabling environment where
the information is available and how easily can a citizen claim the information that the law
legally says the citizen can claim (DFID, 2008).
Beyond basic horizontal and vertical accountability are the various and complex inter-
accountabilities among donors, agencies, governments, and citizens. Winters explains five sets of
accountabilities. The first accountability is the implementing agency to the users of the service. It
is the accountability of the agency implementing the service, this can be a government agency or
an outside NGO, to the users of the service. However, Winters questions how the users can hold
these agencies accountable when there are usually few alternatives and the users lack an exit
strategy. Most user participation comes in the form of choosing the initial project and should be
expanded into monitoring and auditing. Secondly, implementing agencies have an accountability
to national governments. Again, the implementing agency may be a government entity or an
outside agency. If the implementing agency is from the government, then incentives should be
crafted to bring greater results. However, creating these incentives will be a difficult innately
political exercise rather than a simple implementation. Thirdly, the national government is
accountable to its users/citizens. It is a basic form of accountability of a government to its
citizen. It can be suggested that donors who are too involved in program design could undermine
this accountability as it may slow the government’s own response to citizen needs. Another
accountability is the government to the donors. This is the government’s own accountability to
implement the aid as it was intended by the donor. Governments do not always use aid for its
intended investment purpose, instead using it for consumption. This questions how much donors
can punish these governments who misuse aid? Also, how far can donors push before
government accountability to its citizens becomes undermined? Finally, donors are accountable
to both governments and citizens. In particular, this accountability follows the need for
predictability in aid. Donors need to work with governments to ensure promised aid is delivered
and how best to use the aid. Thus, bringing donors in line with each other and governments to
align aid (Winters, 2010).

15
Figure 3: The Accountability Triangle
Donors are accountable to governments and their end users as well as governments being
accountable to donors and their citizens. How has aid affect these overarching accountabilities?
It could be argued that aid decreases institutional quality, draining talent away from civil services
and civil servants becoming less beholden to their constituents. Also, aid could decrease the
government’s need for domestic revenue raising and be a source of rents (Winters, 2010; Knack,
2001). Aid can decrease accountability in developing countries. Furthermore, due to the broader
interests at play, the goal of reducing poverty may not be met. Also, with great proliferation and
increased transaction costs, the large administrative costs of aid will diminish the effectiveness of
aid. Mentioned earlier, aid can be unpredictable. Finally, it is not focused on results (Winters,
2010; Barder, 2009). Ultimately, the current state of aid and its distribution has the potential to
negatively affect the interrelated accountabilities at play among donors, governments, and
citizens.
As Barder (2009) discusses the political economy of aid, he outlines the following four major
issues. First and foremost, the information on aid is asymmetrical and the information feedback
mechanisms are broken. Thus, information is not equally known nor is it direct. Furthermore,
while the overarching goal may be poverty reduction, each stakeholder has a different objective.
The aid agencies exist to bridge the varied objectives and the different levels of known
information as well as work to receive returns to scale. However, agencies have their own
principle-agent issues reconciling the priorities of the actors involved; the longer the delivery
chain the more difficult the reconciliation becomes. Moreover, different aid agencies, due to their
varied objectives, are prone to collective action problems. Thus, obtaining positive spillover
effects becomes more difficult as does the reciprocal diminishing of negative effects. These are
essentially market failures within aid and inefficiencies in the system due to information
asymmetries. Thus, for aid to function well, information is central and citizen empowerment in
the decision-making process.
The lack of aid transparency and accountability has led to three issues which are being
highlighted by Mulley (2010): (i) an efficiency problem, (ii) an effectiveness problem, and (iii)

16
an empowerment problem. Solving these major problems will need action by both donors and
countries. At the moment, each entity has its own initiative which acts alone and independently
of other initiatives and actors. What is needed is an “ecosystem” (Mulley, 2010, p. 6). Thus,
there is a network of approaches by donors which can complement and enhance the
accountability between donors to the citizens in the developing countries.
It is important to highlight that important tensions between aid transparency and the quality of
governance with government institutions exists; however, the concepts are intertwined, gradual
process and as a first step international donors should enhance their own accountability to be
more credible with governments in their policy dialogue and support governments with
methodologies, instruments, knowledge on the “how to” of accountability. International donors
provide critical advice to governments and often are key players to support institutional reforms
and provide specific advice on the “how to” and tools of the sequencing and implementation of
governance reforms. Donors can leverage their influence on governments to enhance their
accountability through different mechanisms. For instance example, the Open Aid Partnership a
program sponsored by the World Bank provided technical advice and the technology platform
enabling the Bolivian Government to make the project data about all donor-financed projects
fully transparent on an interactive map. While the program focused on developing an inter-active
mapping platform that has visualized for the first time all donor-financed programs on a map, the
Bolivian Government also applied the platform to make transparent the project data about its
own public investments. This example demonstrates that enhanced aid transparency can go hand
in hand with improved public and fiscal transparency. The two types of transparency and
accountability mechanisms do not have to be mutually exclusive, however enhanced aid
transparency can act as a first step toward improved fiscal transparency. In fact, there can be
important synergies between these two dimensions of accountability.
Furthermore, donors help to create international standards for accountability which can put
pressure on governments to be more accountable. Often international transparency standards, can
provide important incentives to government since they allow for cross-country comparisons. A
central example is the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, a high level commitment among
governments and donors which set the international standard for enhanced aid effectiveness,
harmonization and alignment. It touted four central concepts, including the harmonization of aid
with government agendas, the alignment or coordination of donor aid, the predictability of aid
from year to year, and the mutual accountability of donor institutions (DFID, 2008). It focuses
on ensuring that national governments are in the driver’s seat of aid and donors should align
around the country strategies. The countries should have ownership over development policies
and donors need to be committed to assisting countries pursue goals. Furthermore, commitments
made to make concrete action on these fronts as well as being results driven. Three years later,
the Accra Agenda for Action reaffirmed that progress had been made since the Paris Declaration,
yet more work needs to be done. In particular, the Accra Agenda reaffirmed the role of the
recipient countries and their leadership over their development and the capacity to run their own
development. Similarly, it reaffirmed the need to account for results; that there needs to be more
transparency and accountability to respective audiences for these results. Also, that at least in the
medium term, aid predictability needs to be increased. Finally, the Accra Agenda affirmed the
need to build new and enhanced partnerships which would increase the effectiveness of aid
(OECD, 2005/2008).

17
Finally, the 2011 Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, furthers the concept
of country ownership. The Busan Partnership Agreement reaffirms that countries own the
development process, and projects should correspond to the specific country needs. Out of the
Busan meeting also came the formation of the Global Partnership for Effective Development
Cooperation (GPEDC) which had its first meeting in April 2014 (Busan Partnership Agreement,
2011; OECD/UNDP, 2014).
While the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda pushed forward the donor conversation, it is
essentially high level and disconnected from the citizens. As Mulley (2010) notes, there is no
Paris Declaration of recipient countries. Overall, a frequent criticism is that the aid effectiveness
agenda is too donor and government centric and does include a citizen-centered perspective.
How can we apply the principles of Open Development to the aid effectiveness agenda? There
are several areas where this approach can make an important contribution. A key element is the
traceability of aid; essentially aid should be able to be tracked or traced from the initial
investment by the donor taxpayer to the executed delivery of a service. If aid is traced from the
beginning of the process to the final delivery then this could significantly enhance aid
effectiveness and transparency (Barder, 2011b). Other areas where this approach can add
significant value include collaboration, transparency, sharing, and empowerment (Walters,
2012). Overall, it is aligning the donor funds around the citizens’ needs. Citizens can trace the
funds and the citizens generate the data for enhanced policymaking. Thus, it takes the high level,
intergovernmental, and removed declaration to the citizens.
In general, transparency should be centered on the needs of citizen rather than donors. Without
key information on donor funds, it will be more difficult for civil society and parliamentarians
when holding the government accountable. At the same time, there should be acknowledgement
that people in developing countries and in developed countries have different aims towards aid.
In developing countries, most people care about the successful execution of aid while donor
country citizens frequently are concerned about its allocation. In developing countries most
citizens want to know how the money is going to be used and where the donor-funded programs
are working. Barder takes the example of a proposed housing project: the citizens of developing
countries want to know of the proposed aid for this project, “how much money actually gets
spent on construction, how many houses get built, and where are they?” (Barder, 2011a, p. 6). In
developed countries, once money is allocated, the citizenry expect money will be executed
properly efficiently while those in developing countries do not have the same confidence and do
not assume this ability. As said, citizens in developed countries want to know where their money
is being assigned so they can hold donors accountable for poor use of their funding and see the
impact of aid. Both citizenries have the right to know how donors and governments use the
funds. The execution of aid and data needs to be presented around citizen needs in communities
rather than how donor agencies would like the data (Barder, 2011a; Barder, 2011b).
By moving beyond the organizations and towards citizen-centered transparency and data implies
a culture change: a change of only development specialists monitoring to a decentralized group
of volunteers both generating and monitoring results. It moves away from donor generated

18
information to citizen-generated information. Barder (2011a) describes social accountability as a
“Development 3.0” where the focus is on bottom-up generated data rather than the top-down
agency generated data. By brining in crowdsourcing and creating decentralized networks, then
these networks can monitor the results and increase coordination. Many of the costs and
impediments to aid effectiveness discussed earlier could be reduced with these networks—such
as reduced principal-agent issues or coordination costs. Ultimately, the citizen/user becomes the
center of the strategy rather the donor or the government (Barder, 2009; Barder 2011a; Barder
2011b).
Why are these visualizations and mapping development data important? Why is geography
significant? Data visualizations can empower citizens to access, interpret, and use data from their
perspective rather than the donor perspective. It refocuses aid transparency to citizens and
stakeholders. There is also an important relationship between geography and aid both at the
national and sub-national level (Gigler, 2010). It is leveraging innovations in technology to
provide more data and results based on information on development programs at the
local/community level. For example, national level education indicators may be useful to know
how a country is developing its education system but to a family trying to decide where is the
best local school to send their child the information is not specific enough; rather they need the
local level information on their town’s schools. The same scenario exists with development
projects: citizens need to know which projects are happening in their local area, merely the
national level will not help them find the projects. Geocoding is a tool where citizens can
visualize where projects are happening and how they can benefit from it. Essentially, the
intended beneficiaries of a project cannot benefit if they so not know where the projects are
being planned and implemented (Gigler, 2010). It also returns to the issue of where the priorities
are for the citizens of developing countries: it is the execution of aid rather than the allocation of
aid (Barder, 2011a).
V. Open Development in Practice
Open Development embeds into a larger political economy reform process to enhance the
effectiveness, legitimacy, and inclusiveness of governments and donors. It is not openness for the
sake of openness but openness for future development. Can this new model help these
organizations to become more accountable and responsive to the needs of citizens? At the same
time, can the donor community ask governments to make their own budgets and development
assistance public and easily accessible without their own commitment? How can donor agencies
leverage their accountability to enhance government accountability through their projects and
technical advice?
Open Development programs are dependent on the embedded social local context and should be
placed into the broader social accountability framework. For both ICT-enabled and non-ICT
enabled programs, the critical factor for the success of these programs is the uptake of the
initiatives at the community level and bringing together both the supply and demand side factors
of accountability mechanisms.

19
VI. Case Studies
The following section will first provide a quick overview of some of the principle initiatives of
openness and transparency in the governance area of international development. Secondly, it will
analyze several non-ICT mechanisms to enhance social accountability, in order to frame the
issues around the key challenges of improving the delivery and quality of services to the poor.
Thirdly, it investigates in more depth three programs leveraging ICT-enabled mechanisms:
Mapping for Results, the Open Aid Partnership (OAP) initiatives in Malawi and Nepal, and ICT-
enabled citizen feedback mechanisms and engagement
Open Data Initiatives
As discussed previously, the World Bank Open Data Initiative is one of the current openness
programs. Furthermore, the multi-stakeholder International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI)
(http://www.aidtransparency.net/) is a principal international program of the donor community
that enhances the transparency of international aid programs. The aim is to maximize the
effectiveness of aid in its goal to reduce poverty. Launched in 2008, the initiative has 19
signatory countries and 22 partner endorsing countries. The initiative aims to increase the
comprehension of aid data through the establishment of a “common global standard for the
publication of aid information” (Development Gateway, 2012, p. 3). With these guidelines, all
published data will have a comparable format for future use. Any donor can use the IATI
standard, with its available definitions and formatting, regardless if the donor is a member of
IATI.
In terms of budget transparency, the Open Budget Initiative supports greater openness, public
accessibility, transparency, and accountability in government budgets and systems (Development
Gateway, 2012). Developed by the International Budget Partnership (IBP), the organization
conducted the first Open Budget Survey in 2006. From the survey, the IBP creates a measure, the
Open Budget Index (OBI) to score countries on the public information available during the
budget process. With an open budget, citizens are empowered to examine the effectiveness of
government spending (IBP, n.d). Similarly, BOOST is a World Bank initiative launched in 2010
to accelerate citizen access to budget data; it currently works in about 40 countries. Leveraging a
user-friendly platform, BOOST permits easy access to data on expenditures. Thus, civil society,
citizens and the public at large are empowered to download, comprehend, and act on government
data (Open Budget Portal, World Bank) (http://wbi.worldbank.org/boost/boost-initiative).
The Open Government Partnership (OGP) launched in 2011 with 53 participating governments.
A multilateral initiative it aims to garner solid commitments from governments on transparency,
using new technologies for greater governance. It also aims to empower citizens and combat
corruption. The process includes: “member governments embrace a high-level Open
Government Declaration; delivery a country action plan developed with public consultation; and
commit to independent reporting of their progress” (Development Gateway, 2012, p.1). The
country’s open data should cover all government programs, such as development aid. OGP also
includes an accountability element with social audits and civil participation, such as “citizens’
budgets” (Development Gateway, 2012, p. 2).

20
The Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT), from 2011, “is an action network to
advance and institutionalize global norms and to promote significant, continuous improvements
in fiscal transparency, engagement, and accountability around the world” (Development
Gateway, 2012, p. 3). It advances the openness of government budgets and fiscal transparency.
GIFT aims to have a sustained plan beginning with potential early gains then a long-term scaled
up plan. Organized across four Working Groups, which generally represent the various
stakeholder interests, include capacity building and exploiting new technologies (Development
Gateway, 2012).
Figure 4: Open Data Initiatives
Source: Development Gateway, 2012.
Various individual countries launched their own data transparency initiatives such as the Kenya
Open Data Initiative and the Timor-Leste Transparency Portal. Uganda is soliciting
crowdsourced data through UReport (Development Gateway, 2012).
Non-ICT Mechanisms
Moving specifically to the non-ICT and ICT-enabled studies, technology is an enabler and
facilitator of programs; however, the underpinnings of social accountability mechanisms have to
be in place for the ICT to work optimally. The process of developing these mechanisms is
important to the overall success of enhancing accountability. As Gaventa and McGee (2013)
described earlier, many open data and Open Development initiatives do not necessarily
demonstrate a clear impact on citizens’ lives. The following non-ICT examples have been quite
effective in addressing accountability challenges and have successfully improved the delivery of
public services to poor communities.
One project that demonstrated a significant impact on people’s lives is the Public Expenditure
Tracking Survey (PETS). The open budget PETS, from Uganda in 1996, identified education aid

21
leakages (Kuriyan, et. al., 2011). PETS surveys followed and tracked the money allocated for
services from their initial allocation to the actual distribution of funds at the local level. Used in
many countries, the PETS surveys aim to identify leakages at the various levels of distribution.
In Uganda, the PETS survey tracked education funding and made local public expenditures
public. Once public, schools saw a significant decrease in funding leakages. The program helped
to bring transparency to the process and accountability as well as citizen empowerment (Joshi,
2013).
In another example, Björkman and Svensson (2010) examine community-based monitoring in
health in Uganda; to examine why certain communities were able to garner better service
delivery over others—in particular, the authors examined the role of the community’s social
heterogeneity in improving health service delivery. In 2004, a pilot program of citizen report
cards, with various locations across Uganda, with the objective to “…strengthen providers’
accountability to citizen-clients by initiating a process, using trained local actors (CBOs) as
facilitators, that the communities themselves could manage and sustain” (Björkman and
Svensson, 2010, p. 572). To this end, there were a series of meetings—a community meeting, a
staff meeting, and interface meeting—to discuss information for the report cards as well as
developing a joint plan for pinpointing central problems, improving the service, and outlining
responsibilities. In general, the community monitoring created great results with improved
service delivery. However, the authors note variation among the communities. Especially if there
are weaker incentives for the providers, the outcomes are weaker. Also, the more fractionalized a
community, the less able it is to create collective action for improving the service. Finally, the
authors conclude that the local sociopolitical context is a necessary component of project design
but this area of research is still new (Björkman and Svensson, 2010).
Using the framing examples of feedback and monitoring without ICT-enabled platforms, the
following section will discuss in depth the case studies of Mapping for Results, the Open Aid
Partnership (OAP) initiatives in Malawi and Nepal, and ICT-enabled citizen feedback
mechanisms and engagement.
Mapping for Results
How can a citizen become involved in a project if people are not aware of the project? With the
great advances in GPS and mapping technology, understanding the geospatial location of a
project has made leaps and bounds (Gigler, Tanner, Kiess, forthcoming). Mapping for Results
follows the great increase in technology available, in particular the ubiquitous cell phone.
Furthermore, advances in geospatial technology show no sign of slowing. With the advent of
Google Maps, GPS on cell phones, and advanced geo-coding technology, comprehending the
world spatially continues to advance. Similarly, the proliferation in technology allows for near
real-time updates to mapping, enhancing communication about changes on the ground. The 2010
Haiti earthquake exemplifies this real-time interaction: technology and crowdsourced data
enhanced relief coordination. Citizens used various types of technology, from SMS to phone and
Twitter, to relay victim locations; with this crowdsourced data and “using geo-spatial mapping
technology to pinpoint the locations of victims from their text messages, some 600 volunteers
generated an interactive ‘crisis map’ of Port au Prince in less than two weeks” (Gigler, Tanner,
Kiess, forthcoming, p. 5). Mapping technology allows for a fast, coordinated response among
volunteers, NGOs, and citizens with a rapid turn over time.

22
Mapping for Results, also builds on the interconnection of geography and aid. In a similar vein to
Krugman’s theories on the relationship of geography and trade, an important connection exists
between aid flows and the physical location of a development project (Gigler, 2010). Likewise,
the initiative comes in a similar vein to the Interactive Community Mapping which engaged the
local community to spatially understand and create a detailed map their space (Shkabatur,
2014b). Also, the Map Kibera project which also united mapping and technology to bring a
marginalized slum of one million inhabitants into existence on an official map (Gigler, Tanner,
Kiess, forthcoming).
Mapping for Results launched in October 2010 by the World Bank Institute in partnership with
AidData; it geographically locates World Bank-financed projects on an interactive map. From its
initial foundation, Mapping for Results has mapped over 36,000 locations of active World Bank-
financed projects in over 140 countries. The project has three central strategic goals: 1) report the
results of World Bank-financed projects in a spatial and geographic visualization 2) refine
transparency and accountability leading to improved aid 3) strengthen stakeholders at multiple
levels. Mapping for Results aims to further transparency, and assist citizen participation; thus,
maximize development aid (Gigler, 2011a; Gigler et. al, forthcoming). With the projects mapped
out on the country at the subnational level, users can also use indicators, such as poverty or
health, and overlay them to illustrate projects matching with country needs at the subnational
level. Finally as a map, this is user friendly and can be understood with ease (Gigler, Tanner, and
Thus, “by visualizing the precise geographic locations of the Bank’s projects at the sub-national
level on an interactive map, people would be able to see exactly where funds were being spent.
Users of the map would be able to click on the geo-coded locations to learn about the purpose,
cost, and results of each development project” (Gigler, Tanner, and Kiess, forthcoming, p. 9). A
central tenet of Mapping for Results is assessing the effectiveness of the World Bank’s projects
and development aid; to this end, the platform includes a section of on results where users learn
project details. Ultimately, this project allows users an amplified and in depth look into World
Bank financing in a tool which is easily understandable and empowering (Gigler, Tanner, and
The initiative is not without its challenges. In the effort to have precise and accurate maps and
pinpoint project locations, there were issues with data verification and logistics. Hurdles included
institutional constraints and ensuring accurate data. With time, a greater emphasis on the
geographic locations of the projects will make the process of pinpointing locations easier.
Coordinating also proved a difficult task. Logistically, projects located in remote and isolated
areas of countries were difficult to reach to verify their information and ensure accuracy. Over
time, these hurdles will diminish as Mapping for Results integrates further into the World Bank’s
reporting framework and becomes a part of the process (Gigler, Dodds and Tanner,
forthcoming).
Finally, and a question which has been discussed throughout this paper, is the extent to which the
information can be interpreted meaningfully in the present and in the long term. Updating, using,
and reaching conclusions from the maps from its information requires skills and up-to-date

23
information. This is an obstacle for many initiatives, but the project energizes the conversation
on the relationship between geography and development. Mapping for Results is a continued
effort to further pinpoint and visualize projects to permit full utilization, understanding, and
enhancement development effectiveness (Gigler, Dodds and Tanner, forthcoming).
Open Aid Partnership (OAP)
The Open Aid Partnership (OAP), launched by the World Bank Institute in 2011, also aims to
enhance aid effectiveness. At this moment the initiative has seven donors partaking in the
program; OAP brings these donors in partnership with developing countries to improve
development aid. The OAP works in conjunction with the IATI and OGP to manage data sets
and increase accessibility. The OAP’s initial emphasis is the Open Aid Map. The Open Aid Map
geocodes aid projects, leading to an easy to comprehend visualization. In conjunction with the
visualization techniques, the OAP will work to improve civil society capacity through its
function as an infomediary. A secondary stage will include accountability and response
proposals; at this stage, civil society will have the capacity to act on the development data.
Simultaneously, the OAP intends to foster the supply side capacity for government to respond to
citizen feedback (Development Gateway, 2012).
OAP expands the Mapping for Results progam to multiple donors. IATI coordinated with the
OAP to create an international standard for reporting. The OAP information is publically
available; it aims to help receiver countries view donor-implemented programs as well as donors
view concentrations in programs within a developing nation. With various donors implementing
projects, in various sectors and across countries, the OAP aims to enhance coordination of
programs. Mapping projects can limit the risk of duplicate projects, and minimize administrative
drain from governments as well as permit citizen feedback and empowerment. Ultimately, this
could improve the transparency, decision-making, and effectiveness of development aid.
For example, the OAP operates in the country of Malawi. The country has received aid for 50
years but lags in development. In 2008, the Ministry of Finance adopted the Aid Management
Platform, a software tool to track incoming aid flows. However, the program did not completely
capture all the information for the ministry to make fully informed decisions on projects. The
finance ministry centrally uses the current data for budgeting and is not fully open to donors.
With joining the commitment to aid transparency, Malwai became part of the aid mapping
initiative. In 2011, OAP mapped all projects from almost all donors active in Malawi. However,
this project is an isolated pilot and at this point is not incorporated into the country’s aid
management. By mapping the location of projects the program hoped to reduce redundancy and
duplication of products (Dodds and Xu, forthcoming).
However constraints exist, in particular with reporting. Reporting is late as it takes time to
precisely locate a project; thus, the Aid Management Platform has a time lag before it reporting
and publishing the data. In terms of mapping projects, the map may not fully capture the overall
aim of a project; for example, a project may not be location specific (Dodds and Xu,
forthcoming).
For the project to have greater success and a sustained impact on the country, Malawi needs to
feel greater ownership over the project. From the donor side, there should be more coordination

24
over projects, better citizen engagement, and a move to focus the results more on the local
context and results from the local level (Dodds and Xu, forthcoming).
ICT-Enabled Citizen Feedback/Engagement
With the new technologies, soliciting citizen feedback and enhancing mechanisms for citizens to
submit their grievances and satisfaction on projects and services is easier and can be done in near
real time (Gigler, et. al, 2014a).
First, the Check My School Initiative in the Philippines is an ICT-enabled community-
monitoring tool for education. The citizen feedback platform leverages SMS, mobile phones, and
mapping to create better accountability among citizens, providers, and the government. For
example, citizens leveraged the crowdsourcing capabilities of the service to check on the quality
of toilets in schools. From this feedback, the government responded with inspections and
improvements. There were clear incentives for the government to act and respond to citizens.
Check My School’s data covered over 44,000 schools in the country; however, the data from the
Department of Education did not include GPS coordinates. Thus, the map of schools only
included 8,684 schools. The program did include filters to search for schools and importantly a
feedback mechanism. The project did encounter issues with low internet access, capabilities, and
technical issues. Subsequently, the Check My School Facebook page became the central method
for feedback. After the first year of the project, there were several lessons learnt, such as capacity
building, creating a sustained and constructive dialogue between supply and demand, and
technology effectiveness. Overall, the project saw both successes—such as a successful
collaboration with the Department of Education—and challenges—including the ICT capabilities
(Kumar, 2014; Pradhan, 2014; Shkabatur, 2014a).
In the state of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil, the “Government Asks” initiative solicits feedback
using a variety of channels: internet, mobile phones, and in-person meetings. Beyond feedback,
the initiative asks citizens, through wiki surveys, to also have input on co-designing policies and
on service delivery. The specific technology incorporated into the initiative was the citizen
engagement tool: All Our Ideas (AOI). The freely available tool has been adapted for many
environments, including Rio de Janeiro and New York City. The tool is tested, user-friendly, and
multi-lingual. The various channels of communication incentivized high levels of participation in
the project. Furthermore, the initiative took into account the state context, created an educational
campaign for citizens, as well as ensuring materials and tools were tested and matched the
capabilities of users. For example from the health sector, the state saw increases in allocation for
primary health care, increased numbers of Mobile Emergency Service bases, financial support
not only three regional hospitals but also for the family health program as well as a starting a
new network for prenatal and childcare. Through the multifaceted channels, including specific
outreach trips to the poorest and marginalized members of the state, the project solicited tangible
results (Gigler, et. al, 2014b).
The Governance Program—ICT4Gov—in the Democratic Republic of Congo incorporates
technology with participatory budgeting. With the Congo’s history of poor institutions,
corruption, and violence, citizens have little trust in government institutions from the national to
the local level. In 2006, the Congo’s national government transferred many powers to the local
level, including the budget. In 2009, the government launched the ICT4Gov program in the

25
province of South Kivu. The central technology leveraged in the program is the mobile phone:
“While many citizens in South Kivu lack electricity or running water, many have access to
mobile phones” (Gigler, et. al, 2014b, p. 224). Coupling the use of SMS with in-person meetings
and community assemblies, the project encourages greater engagement and knowledge of the
budget process and allocation. In the assemblies, citizens vote on potential projects, learn the
decisions made, and offer feedback on the projects—including implementation and outcome
(Gigler et. al, 2014b).
However, ICT4Gov faces challenges. While mobile phones are becoming ubiquitous in the
province, there may still be issues with unequal access to the technology. In this case, the
addition of in-person meetings assists to lessen this potential asymmetry. The project created
partnerships with many stakeholders, in particular those with local knowledge. A variety of
sectors—education, health, and infrastructure—have seen improvements since the project’s
implementation. Moreover, the improved levels of local tax collection suggests citizens can see
where and how their taxes are spent. In a 2012 law, the Parliament of South Kivu
institutionalized participatory budgeting. Other provinces and countries demonstrated interest in
adopting a similar participatory budgeting system (Gigler et. al, 2014b).
An ICT-enabled program, which will also be mentioned in the next section, is the Daraja’s Maji
Matone Project in Tanzania. In 2009, the civil society organization Daraja began the Raising the
Water Pressure/Maji Matone Project to solicit citizen feedback on rural access to water. To
garner this feedback, the project chose to use mobile phones and SMS. Centrally, the project
aimed to share information on where water functioned with the public in an easily
comprehendible format as well as allow citizens to update this information (via SMS) and
elucidate the government response to citizen feedback. However, citizens did not use SMS
system; after six months the program only received 53 messages rather than the aim of 3,000
messages. The program did fix numerous access points but overall, the project was unsuccessful.
The project attributes its failure centrally to the lack of consideration for gender issues: women
are the primary collectors of water for the household and a scarcity of mobile access for these
rural women. Also, the project lacked guarantees that feedback would improve the water
situation for the citizens. Thus, incentives for citizens to participate were minimal. The citizens
had low expectations and a lack of trust in their governments to deliver conditioned by years of
failed promises. At the same time, pervasive fear in providing grievances over the water would
reap reprisals for the citizen, even with anonymous messages (Daraja, 2011; Gigler, et. al,
2014b).
The final citizen feedback mechanism is the OnTrack Platform (Innovations in Governance
Team, 2014). The platform, under the umbrella of the Open Development Technology Alliance,
“supports short message service (SMS) and Web-based feedback loops between citizens, civil
society, government, implementing agencies, and World Bank staff around World Bank-funded
project” (Gigler, et. al, 2014a, p. 5). Thus, the aim is for all stakeholders to give feedback on
projects as well as monitor and act upon this feedback. Using the available technology and
harnessing the input from citizens, projects and the implementation of projects can improve
(Gigler, et. al, 2014a).

26
Several countries, including Bolivia, Nepal, and Zambia, have tested the platform. In detail, in
Bolivia the platform has worked with two major projects: the Rural Alliance Project (PAR) and
the infrastructure program Barrios de Verdad (PBCV); both are World Bank-funded initiatives.
For PAR, the OnTrack platform has been integrated into PAR’s official website. PAR aims to
improve the situation of rural farmers and their access to markets. The organization aims to
achieve this goal by “implementing a productive rural partnership model” (Gigler et. al, 2014b,
p. 216). For this occur, the farmers need improved access to technology, strengthened farmer
organizations among other economic and political relationships. With OnTrack, farmers can
provide feedback through technology as well as act as a communication channel among
stakeholders. For residents on the outskirts of La Paz, the PBCV works to improve infrastructure
and community participation. PBCV aims to improve 200 neighborhoods (out of 539) in the
municipality by 2015. Leveraging OnTrack, there is a direct communication link for residents to
submit feedback. With SMS and internet methods, the platform aims to reduce costs and the time
consuming process of in-person feedback for the users (Gigler, et. al, 2014a; Gigler et. al,
2014b).
In Nepal, the OnTrack platform has worked in conjunction with the community-driven Poverty
Alleviation Fund (PAF); financed by the World Bank, PAF aims to target the needs of the
poorest citizens. The PAF intends to empower citizens to develop and manage their own
projects. The program in its initial stage has worked in the 40 poorest districts in Nepal before it
has been expanded to reach a national scale. The organization utilizes a participatory approach
with the local government and civil society. This approach aims to activate local citizens to form
their own organizations within their communities. PAF encompasses several platforms for
feedback and monitoring purposes. The primary method of collecting information was through
community meetings, but PAF also leveraged technological methods. The PAF incorporated a
telephone hotline, a website to post messages, and radio where citizens could call or write and
have PAF respond on air. With this background, the OnTrack platform aimed to build further
and supplement PAF’s existing framework. An online platform as well as an SMS service,
OnTrack enables further engagement among citizens, officials, and project groups. The platform
includes space for feedback, suggestions, and to describe problems. Similarly, it has the option to
publish results and information in real time. Again, the platform aims to complement existing
efforts and further enable citizen feedback (Gigler, et. al, 2014a; Gigler et. al, 2014b).
The program has also encountered several key challenges in its implementation phase. A key
challenge has been to transfer the technology platform and the related technology know-how to
local government institutions. In Bolivia, for instance, the PAR project has transferred the entire
platform to a local technology provider and the Government has initiated a process to fully
integrate a citizen feedback platform into its existing project management platform. Another key
challenge the program was confronted with is the lack of incentives of citizens to provide
continuous feedback using an ICT-enabled platform. In most countries the programs are still
lacking a strategy on how to leverage technology for a continuous engagement with citizens. In
Nepal, the program also encountered real restrictions in terms of the capacity of citizens to
provide feedback by cellphone. The field pilots in rural Nepal highlighted that the illiteracy rate
in particular of rural women was too high that the use of SMS was not feasible. To address these
challenges, the program made important adjustments and developed in addition to the SMS-
based system also a voice-based feedback system, which also allows rural communities with

27
very high illiteracy rates to provide feedback. Finally, however it needs to be mentioned that the
program also encountered important cultural barriers in rural Nepal. In general, for the majority
of the rural poor in Nepal the concept of providing feedback with or without technology to
government was unknown and frequently people expressed a sense of general mistrust in the
government. Thus social and cultural factors have represented major obstacle for the successful
implementation of the program in particular among the marginalized and poorest communities in
rural Nepal.
Furthermore, in Zambia for instance, the government’s program lacked the capacity to fully
implement the program due to the lack of local resources. While the program initiated program
activities demonstrating the value of citizen-generated data for the monitoring and evaluation of
the programs in the agricultural sector, the On Track program failed to institutionalize the
feedback system into existing government processes. This is a frequent problem with citizen
feedback program- establishing not only a system that allow citizens to express their views
however to simultaneously strengthen the capacity of government institutions to also effectively
respond to the obtain feedback.
Based on these case studies the following section summarizes some of the key lessons learnt
from implementing ICT-enabled citizen engagement programs.
Lessons Learnt from Early Experiences from ICT-Enable Citizen Engagement Programs
From the who to the how, there are many points to improve citizen feedback initiatives. First,
and centrally these initiatives should have clarity. An absence of clarity results in unrealistic
expectations and misunderstandings about the purposes of feedback. With an explicit purpose
and defined objective, all stakeholders understand the objectives. It will also help design the
optimal feedback mechanism to pursue the stated goals. Moreover, the collected feedback should
go beyond the success or failure of a project into more ambitious goals: “these initiatives should
therefore include long-term policy reform that aims to build citizen capacity to engage and
government capacity to provide effective services…also strive to transform feedback into citizen
empowerment and to reform how projects are implemented in the future” (Gigler, et. al, 2014a,
p. 42). Thus, the collection of feedback should have both short-term importance on the current
project but also a long-term amplified impact on development (Gigler, et. al, 2014a; Gigler et. al,
2014b).
“Technology is not a panacea, and development projects should not be technology driven”
(Gigler, et. al, 2014a, p. 42). Projects should not be designed around new technology but
technology embedded into projects that take into account the context and environmental
capabilities. The technology responds to the needs of the project. Using the latest technology
may not be appropriate for every project, rather the mechanism should complement the
environment: the political, socioeconomic, and cultural context. Without understanding the
norms and the flexibility to alter programs to better reflect the context, the success of the project
will be diminished. Furthermore, the type of feedback should be expanded to both positive and
negative comments, thus incorporating more stakeholders into the feedback process and
garnering well rounded feedback. Technology, both new and old, should be incorporated to
create a hybrid platform of citizen engagement: “a hybrid approach that enables citizens to
engage using multiple modalities, including new technologies for expansive reach (that is,

28
Internet and mobile phones) combined with older technologies and no-tech platforms to ensure
inclusivity (that is, community radio and face-to-face interaction)” (Gigler, et. al, 2014a, p. 43).
Older methodologies still have value to this feedback process and in conjunction with new
technologies can aggregate and form a more complete picture of the situation. With many
channels and modes of communication, it greatly expands the participation and inclusiveness
with varied levels of technical capabilities (Gigler, et. al, 2014a; Gigler et. al, 2014b).
For the stakeholders, there needs to be a more complete assessment of who they are and their
roles. The stakeholders go beyond the recipients of the intervention to all groups potentially
affected by the project. Again, there needs to be clarity on these groups and their roles within the
intervention. The feedback mechanisms should be able to include feedback from all these
groups, including those who do not directly benefit from a project but are members of the
community. One stakeholder which should have an established role is civil society. Technology
does not replace the role of civil society in the feedback loop rather it enhances its role as an
intermediary and infomediary among other stakeholders. Furthermore, civil society can help
negotiate the local context and enhance communication. At no point in the process should
stakeholders lack incorporation and engagement in the process. As with engagement in general,
it should not be considered an add-on or ad hoc but systematic and frequent. Similarly,
throughout the project’s process enhancements should be made to improve and adapt to changing
dynamics. As a project develops, the type of solicited feedback should similarly evolve and the
platform should adapt for optimal results (Gigler et. al, 2014a; Gigler et. al, 2014b).
Finally for the how, it comes down to strengthening all stakeholders on both supply and demand
sides of the equation. Merely having a platform available for citizen feedback does not guarantee
use by the intended beneficiaries. Technology should be accompanied by campaigns to ensure
both the citizens’ willingness and capabilities to use the mechanism. Thus, citizens will
understand what the mechanism is, how to use it, will the feedback be safe, and why to use the
platform (Gigler et. al, 2014a; Gigler et. al, 2014b).
Not only should citizen capacity be improved but other stakeholders from the government to
civil society; without the capacity to respond to feedback nothing will develop. Along the way,
this process should be transparent; again, it is an issue of clarity and understanding the aims and
goals of a project. Moreover, it is enhancing the two-way communication clearly, managing
expectations, and outlining standards and responsibilities. Ultimately, the aim is closing the
feedback loop and move beyond feedback alone (Gigler et. al, 2014a; Gigler et. al, 2014b).
As these case studies demonstrate, the use of technology does not inevitably ensure the success
of a project or initiative. Other factors—from the local context, to access—need to be taken into
account. Some of the challenges are described in the case studies themselves and the next section
details further the challenges and obstacles of ICT-enabled platforms.
VII. Challenges and Obstacles
Even with rapid changes in technology and the new approaches which these technologies offer,
these case studies demonstrate continued constraints and obstacles to the full execution of this
model. These challenges do not originate with the technology itself but the conditions and

29
environment around the technology. On one side, there might be a legal constraint on the
extended use of the technology; on the ground, there may be trust issues which arise.
Relationships between transparency and accountability are uncertain and vague. Several factors
constrain and diminish the impact of the technology in bridging the gap among citizens,
governments, and donors (McGee, 2013). Institutionally, without mainstreaming these
technologies, they may merely stay the hype of the present and not embed themselves into future
arrangements. At the same time, governments are beginning to see the value of these initiatives.
On the donor side, there is still much to learn legally about the access to information and the
rights to use this information for all use, even commercial use (Gigler, 2012a).
Legal Challenges
Deficient technology is not the challenge today; the challenge is the legal use of that technology.
Licensing agreements are a central obstacle to the free and public use of data and information.
Learning through experience, donor agencies understand that these arrangements can obstruct the
full potential of the data. The majority of technology companies, such as Google, Facebook, or
Twitter have very complicated licensing arrangement which often represent real obstacles for the
free use and re-use of data, even in the context of programs that support humanitarian
development. In contrast, most NGOs and civil society organizations use the creative commons
license agreement, which is a type of license which only attribution is a necessary qualification
for using the data. Essentially, it is a license for a public good. Open Street Mapping (OSM) uses
an Open Data Commons Database License (OpenStreetMap, n.d.). When the World Bank
intended to develop a partnership with Google to develop a global map of the basic social
infrastructure in developing countries, it was a difficult lesson to learn about the obstacles these
various legal challenges (“Google Inc + World Bank”, 2012).
There are also other legal considerations about the freedom of this data. The issue of privacy, and
the lack of privacy, is a concern when there is an extensive amount of data. The providers of
mobile services act as entry points for the internet and will want to protect their share. Lastly,
there is a possibility for censorship and special filtering of content (Smith, Elder and Emdon,
2011).
Trust
Trust, and a lack of trust, on both sides of the equation could also dampen program effectiveness.
If citizens have little trust in their governments and donors then they are less likely to use the
feedback mechanism. Without trust not much will occur regardless of the technological
capabilities. A concrete example of this failure, partly due to lack of trust, is Daraja’s Maji
Matone Project in Tanzania: the use of mobile technology failed to bridge the gap between
feedback and response. As stated before, the ICT-enabled feedback mechanism, leveraged SMS
to garner feedback if the water system is functioning in the user’s area. While a few access points
were fixed as a result of the program, but overall citizens did not use the system. Again, after a
six-month pilot period, the system only received 53 SMS messages rather than the goal of 3,000
messages. Trust and unequal access to mobile technology hampered the possible success of the
project. Citizens were disheartened by years of low expectations, and did not have the incentives
to participate. Several aspects of the project failed and trust issues increased that failure (Daraja,
2011; Gigler, et. al, 2014b).

30
Institutional Mainstreaming and Sustainability
For Open Development to constitute a real impact, it needs institutional mainstreaming. The
hype of today’s potential needs to be tomorrow’s sustained change and cultural development.
Institutions should see this new transparency and paradigm as part of the institutional fabric
rather than an ad hoc choice for the moment. With the institutional mainstreaming being a long-
term process, the technological embedding must be a sustained process. A challenge is moving
technology and its potential from short-term hype into long-term sustainability.
The role of new technology
These case studies also show early lessons learnt about technology’s role in Open Development.
Essentially, these case studies assist in understanding how donors can progress to co-production
and the enabling factors. Both the demand and the supply side of the equation need to be
simultaneously strengthened. The local socioeconomic context is critical to the relative success
of a project and the Open Development model. Of the push and pull effect, the citizen side—the
pull—should be stronger as citizen have the vested interest. Civil society plays a critical role in
raising awareness and mobilizing citizens. A disconnect exists between initiatives from that side
of the equation and the local grassroots initiatives. At the same time, community monitoring for
accountability may not be connected to larger global initiatives. Much of the new Open
Development agenda still lacks integration into programs and projects on the ground.
VIII. Conclusions
Development, and the Open Development framework, is ultimately still about people: people in
the institutions. Technology has the power and potential to magnify and extend the connections
among people but ultimately the opportunities for development depend on the people. Citizens
are more than voters and can improve services and development through feedback and pressure
on governments and donors (Lieberman, Posner, and Tsai, 2013). People are still the central
actors within development and technology is a tool to further and enhance this interconnected
pool of actors.
In terms of technology, to enable this program, PETS used a media campaign of traditional
technology like radio and worked with the church. The question then arises can the benefits of
PETS be amplified with the advanced technology. What is the change in context between the
1990s when PETS began and today? Could the PETS program be enhanced with the new
technologies? The case studies demonstrate how ICTs can enhance feedback mechanisms;
however, the key to their success is framing and embedding the ICT within the broader local
context and not leveraging the mechanism in a vacuum.
As mentioned in challenges, this potential is the hype of the moment and needs to turn into a
long-term and sustained process. Quick successes are important but the real change in this
process will take time to occur. In five to ten years, then we will be able to see if there has been a
real paradigm shift and a significant impact on development.
In terms of further research, there are different shades of openness at the moment; there may be
openness for some but not others. Research needs to develop a nuanced and analytical approach
to unpack and evaluate the Open Development initiatives. At the moment there is no established

31
and rigorous methodology to compare the initiatives. With an analytical framework, we can fully
compare these initiatives and analyze their impact.
At the moment, the paradigm is still theoretically underdeveloped and we are still missing the
empirical data and evidences that demonstrate the central role open governance approaches can
play to enhancing the effectiveness, responsiveness and inclusiveness of donor-financed
programs. Often open development and open government programs are not yet fully
mainstreamed into the core programs of international donors and governments. It is critical to
move beyond promoting openness and enhanced accountability for their own sake and to provide
more evidence that open governance programs have an important positive impact on enhancing
development outcomes on the ground. The hope is that this paper will contribute to the debate on
methodology and that the suggested model contributes to establishing a better theoretical
foundation for the emerging open development approach.
Bibliography
____. (2012, March 20 last update). “ICTD 2012: Does Openness Enhance Development?”.
Open ICT for Development. Accessed November 16, 2014 from
http://openict4d.wikidot.com/ictd-2012:does-openness-enhance-development.
____. (2012, January 20). “Google Inc + World Bank = Empowering Citizen Cartographers?”.
iRevolution. Accessed November 16, 2014 from http://irevolution.net/2012/01/20/google-inc-
world-bank-empowering-citizen-cartographers/
aidinfo. (2010, March 8). Show Me the Money: IATI and Aid Traceability. Briefing Paper 1.
Accessed November 16, 2014 from http://www.aidinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Show-
me-the-money-IATI-and-aid-traceability.pdf.
Anstey, C. (2011, November 29). “New Technology Can Democratise Development”. The
Guardian. Accessed November 16, 2014 from http://www.theguardian.com/global-
development/poverty-matters/2011/nov/29/technology-can-democractise-development.
Barder. O. (2009). Beyond Planning: Markets and Networks for Better Aid. Center for Global
Development, Working Paper 185. Washington, DC.
Barder, O. (2011, February 22a). Eight Lessons from Three Years Working on Transparency.
Blog. Accessed November 16, 2014 from http://www.owen.org/blog/4433.
Barder, O. (2011, April 7b). Ten Steps for Meaningful Aid Transparency. Blog. Accessed
November 7, 2014 from http://www.owen.org/blog/4486.
Björkman, M. and Svensson, J. (2010). When is Community-Based Monitoring Effective?
Evidence From a Randomized Experiment in Primary Health in Uganda. Journal of the
European Economic Association 8, no. 2-3: 571-581.

32
Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Co-Production
of Public Services. Public Administration Review 67, no. 5: 846-860.
Busan Partnership Agreement. (2011). Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-
Operation, Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Busan, Republic of Korea.
http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/49650173.pdf.
Daraja (2011) The failure of Maji Matone phase 1 (Daraja, accessed Jan. 5 2015) - See more at:
http://www.scidev.net/global/communication/opinion/let-s-make-a-success-of-
failures.html#sthash.RTvhef8b.dpuf
Chambers, R. (1995) "Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts?. "Environment and
urbanization 7, no. 1 (1995): 173-204.
Chambers, R. (1998) Byond “Whose Reality Counts?”: New Methods We No Need”. In:
Cultures, Organizations and Societies, vol. 4:279-301.
DataShift. (n.d.). DataShift: Background. Accessed November 17, 2014 from
http://civicus.org/thedatashift/background/.
Department for International Development (DFID). (2008, February). Accountability Briefing
Note. DFID Practice Paper.
Development Gateway. (2012). “Enabling Open Development: An Overview of Initiatives to
Improve Information.” Accessed November 16, 2014 from
http://www.developmentgateway.org/dg_uploads/pdfs/final_gift-iati-ibp-oap-
ogp_initiative_overview_4_10_12.pdf.
Dodds, E. and Xu, Q. (forthcoming). The Importance of Geography for Aid Effectiveness.
Washington, DC: The World Bank Innovation Practice.
Fisher, M. (2011, March 26). In Tunisia, Act of One Fruit Vendor Sparks Wave of Revolution
Through Arab World. The Washington Post. Accessed November 16, 2014 from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-tunisia-act-of-one-fruit-vendor-sparks-wave-of-
revolution-through-arab-world/2011/03/16/AFjfsueB_story.html.
Fox, J. (2014, September). “Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Say?”. Global
Partnership for Social Accountability Working Paper, no. 1.
Fung, A. and E. Wright (2003) “Thinking About Empowered Participatory Governance”. P. 3-
42. In Fung, A. and E. Wright eds. Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in
Empowered Participatory Governance. The Real Utopias Project IV. London: Verso.
Furnas, A. (2013, May 16). “The Fix-Rate: Integrity Action’s New Transparency and
Accountability Impact Metric.” Sunlight Foundation. Accessed November 16, 2014 from
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/05/16/the-fix-rate-integrity-actions-new-transparency-
and-accountability-impact-metric/.

33
Galtung, Fredrik. (2013, May). The Fix-Rate: A Key Metric for Transparency and
Accountability. Integrity Action Working Paper no. 2.
http://www.integrityaction.org/sites/www.integrityaction.org/files/TheFixRate_Report_May%20
2013.pdf.
Gaventa, J. and McGee, R. (2013). The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives.
Development Policy Review, 31: s3-s28.doi:10.1111/dpr.12017.
Gigler, S. (2010, March 31). “Geography and Aid”. World Bank Blog. Accessed November 16,
2014 from http://blogs.worldbank.org/dmblog/geography-and-aid.
Gigler , S. (2011, October 6a). “Mapping for Results”. World Bank Blog. Accessed November
16, 2014 from http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/mapping-for-results.
Gigler, S. (2011, November 30b). Innovations for Enhanced Aid Harmonization and
Coordination: A Case Study of Nepal. 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. World Bank
Institute.
Gigler, S. (2011, December 23c). “Can Technology be Transformational? Opening up
Development Through Technology”. World Bank Blog. Accessed November 16, 2014 from
http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/can-technology-be-transformational-opening-up-
development-through-technology.
Gigler, S. (2012, January 22a). “Building a Better Toolbox for Development.” World Bank Blog.
Accessed November 16, 2014 from http://blogs.worldbank.org/insidetheweb/building-a-better-
toolbox-for-development.
Gigler, S. (2012, April 9b). “Openness for Whom? And Openness for What?”. Accessed
November 16, 2014 from http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/openness-whom-and-
openness-what.
Gigler, S. (2013, January 25). Innovations for Open Development: Enhance Transparency and
Citizen Engagement for Better Results. http://www.slideshare.net/SorenGigler/final-innovations-
for-open-development-jan-25-2013).
Gigler, S., Bailur, S., and N. Anand. (2014). The Loch Ness Model: Can ICTs Bridge the
“Accountability Gap”?. The World Bank: Washington, DC.
Gigler, S., et. al. (2014a). Closing the Feedback Loop: Can Technology Amplify Citizen Voices.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Gigler, S., et. al. (2014b). Closing the Feedback Loop: Can Technology Amplify Citizen Voices.
In S. Gigler and S. Bailur (Eds.), Closing the Feedback Loop: Can Technology Bridge the
Accountability Gap? (pp. 149-187). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

34
Gigler, S., Dodds, E. and Tanner, R., (forthcoming). The Power of Open Data to Catalyze
Innovations-The Mapping for Results Initiative. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Gigler, S., et al. (forthcoming). Mapping for Results: Game-Changing Opportunities for
Development and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Hanna, N. K. (2012a). Open, Smart and Inclusive Development: Can Information Technology
Transform Development?
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOL
OGIES/Resources/PresentationOSI_Development_WBPDF.pdf.
Hanna. N.K. (2012b). Open, Smart and Inclusive Development: ICT for Transforming North
Africa. African Development Bank Economic Brief.
http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Brochure%20Open%20Sm
art%20Anglais.pdf.
Hickey, S., and G. Mohan, (2004) eds. Participation--from tyranny to transformation?: Exploring
new approaches to participation in development.
Holland, J., and J. Blackburn (1998). Whose voice? Participatory research and policy change.
Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd (ITP), London.
Innovations in Governance Team. (2014). OnTrack: ICT Enabled Citizen Feedback Loop. World
Bank Institute. http://www.slideshare.net/SorenGigler/on-track-ict-enabled-feedback-loop-
march-2013.
International Budget Partnership (IBP). (n.d.). About the Open Budget Initiative. Accessed
November 17, 2014 from http://internationalbudget.org/what-we-do/major-ibp-initiatives/open-
budget-initiative/.
Joshi, A. and M. Moore. (2004): Institutionalized Co-production: Unorthodox Public Service
Delivery in Challenging Environments. The Journal of Development Studies 40, no. 4: 39-40.
DOI: 10.1080/00220380410001673184.
Joshi, A. (2013). Do They Work? Assessing the Impact of Transparency and Accountability
Initiatives in Service Delivery. Development Policy Review, 31(S1): s29-s48.
Knack, S. (2001). Aid Dependence and the Quality of Governance: Cross-Country Empirical
Tests. Southern Economic Journal 68, no. 2: 310-329.
Kumar, R. (2014, December 29). Five Ways Technology is Improving Public Services. World
Bank Blog. Accessed January 11, 2015 from http://blogs.worldbank.org/governance/five-ways-
technology-improving-public-services.
Kuriyan, S., et. al. (2011). Technologies for Transparency and Accountability: Implications for
ICT Policy and Implementation. The World Bank: Open Development Technology Alliance.

35
Lieberman, E., Posner, D., and L. Tsai. (2013). Does Information Lead to More Active
Citizenship?: Evidence From an Education Intervention in Rural Kenya. MIT Political Science
Department Research Working Paper No. 2013-2. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2228900.
McGee, R. (2013). Aid Transparency and Accountability: ‘Build It and They’ll Come’?.
Development Policy Review, 31 (S1): s107-s124.
Mitlin, D. (2008). With and Beyond the State –Co-Production as a Route to Political Influence,
Power and Transformation for Grassroots Organizations. Environment and Urbanization 20, no.
2: 339-360.
Mulley, S. (2010). Donor aid: New Frontiers in Transparency and Accountability. Transparency
and Accountability Initiative. London. http://transparencyinitiative.theideabureau.netdna-
cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/donor_aid_final1.pdf.
Needham, C. (2008, February 29). Realising the Potential of Co-production: Negotiating
Improvements in Public Services. Social Policy and Society 7, no.2: 221-231. DOI:
10.1017/S1474746407004174.
OECD. (2005/2008). The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and Accra Agenda for
Action (2008). OECD. http://www.oecd.org/development/effectiveness/34428351.pdf.
OECD/UNDP. (2014). Making Development Co-operation More Effective: 2014 Progress
Report. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264209305-en.
OpenStreetMap. (n.d.). “Copyright and License”. Accessed November 16, 2014 from
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright.
Ostrom, E., (1996). Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development. World
Development 24, no.6: 1073–88.
Pradhan, S. and Odugbemi, S. (2011, September). The Contours and Possibilities of Open
Development, Development Outreach, Washington, DC: The World Bank Institute: 4-6.
Pradhan, S. (2014). Foreword. In S. Gigler and S. Bailur (Eds.), Closing the Feedback Loop:
Can Technology Bridge the Accountability Gap? (pp. xi-xiv). Washington, DC: The World
Bank.
Shkabatur, J. (2014a). Check My School: A Case Study on Citizens’ Monitoring of the
Education Sector in the Philippines. In S. Gigler and S. Bailur (Eds.), Closing the Feedback
Loop: Can Technology Bridge the Accountability Gap? (pp. 149-187). Washington, DC: The
World Bank.
Shkabatur, J. (2014b). Interactive Community Mapping: Between Empowerment and
Effectiveness. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

36
Smith, M., Elder, L., and H. Emdon (2011). Open Development: A New Theory for ICT4D.
Information Technologies & International Development 7, no. 1: iii-ix.
Strandburg, K. J., Barocas, S., Nissenbaum, H., Acquisti, A., Ohm, P, Stodden, V., Koonin S.E.
et al.(2014) "Privacy, big data, and the public good: frameworks for engagement."
The OpenLearn Team. (2007, September 27 last update). “Latitude and Longitude.” The Open
University. Accessed November 16, 2014 from http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-
arts/history/history-science-technology-and-medicine/history-science/latitude-and-longitude.
Walters, H. (2012, June 26). Welcome to the Open World: Don Tapscott at TEDGlobal 2012.
TEDBlog. Accessed November 16, 2014 from http://blog.ted.com/2012/06/26/welcome-to-the-
open-world-don-tapscott-at-tedglobal-2012/.
Winters, M. (2010). Accountability, Participation and Foreign Aid Effectiveness. International
Studies Review 12, no. 12: 218-243.
Wittemyer, R. et. al. (2014). New Routes to Governance: A Review of Cases in Participation,
Transparency, and Accountability. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
World Bank. (2004). World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People.
New York: Oxford University Press.
World Bank. (n.d.). Open Budgets Portal: BOOST Initiative. Accessed November 17, 2014 from
http://wbi.worldbank.org/boost/boost-initiative.
World Bank Group ed. (2012) World Development Indicators 2012. World Bank Publications,
Washington DC.

Opening Up Development-

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Opening Up Development-

More from Soren Gigler

Recently uploaded

Opening Up Development-