A survey of popular attitudes to local governance in Njombe, Ludewa and Makete districts in rural Tanzania. Presented at the REPOA Annual Research Workshop, March 2012.

1. “We can’t change things”
A study on public attitudes to local governance in
Njombe, Ludewa and Makete
Frank Kaduma, Ben Taylor, Kapongola Nganyanyuka
REPOA Annual Research Workshop, March 2012
www.daraja.org • PO Box 736, Njombe • 026 2782197 • daraja@daraja.org

2. Outline
• Background / Introduction
• What does the literature tell us?
• Study methodology
• Findings and discussion
• Conclusions and implications
making local governance work for the poor

3. Background / Introduction
• “D by D”
– Unfulfilled potential
– New institutions are not created in a vacuum
– Existing cultures, norms, beliefs, attitudes
– A gap in our understanding
making local governance work for the poor

4. What does the literature tell us?
• Why do attitudes matter?
– “policies are developed by consultants, approved by
donors, negotiated with local partners, and adopted in
consultations with little understanding of how underlying
power relations will affect the implementation of these
policies” (Hyden, 2005)
– Citizens’ primary experience of local government is of
“violence” – aggression, insults, appropriation of
resources (Brockington, 2007; 2008)
– “cultures of governance” very influential in determining
how new institutions function in practice (Taylor,
2006a;b;c)
making local governance work for the poor

5. What does the literature tell us?
• Which attitudes matter?
– Citizens’ expectations of LG roles
– Citizens’ views on past performance of LG
– Citizens’ experience of political engagement
– Perceived legitimacy of particular actions – e.g.
public protest, corruption, etc.
– Perceptions on the value of democracy
making local governance work for the poor

6. Study Methodology
• Primarily quantitative methods
– hh survey (n=977), local leaders (n=120)
– Drawing heavily on Afrobarometer questionnaire
– Stratified (for urban / rural balance) random
sample
• Some qualitative methods
– focus ground discussions
– key informant interviews
making local governance work for the poor

7. Study Methodology
• Location – Njombe region
– Njombe town and district, Ludewa and Makete
districts
– Mixed urban (small town) and rural area
– Not wealthiest, not poorest
• Fieldwork timing – 2009-2010
• Mobile phone-based data collection
– Phones programmed with questionnaires
(Episurveyor)
– Data entered directly, transferred remotely to server
– Big saving in time and cost of data entry and cleaning
making local governance work for the poor

8. Sample Characteristics
• Njombe town 20%; district 43%; Ludewa 20%;
Makete 18%
• Urban 20%; Rural 80%
• Young (15-34yrs) 35%; Adult (35-50) 48%;
Elderly (>50) 17%
• Unemployed 5%; Farmers 82%; Formal
employment 13%
• Very poor 23%; Poor 58%; less poor 19%
(based on hh assets)
making local governance work for the poor

9. Findings and Discussion
• Popular expectations of LG role – village level
making local governance work for the poor

10. Findings and Discussion
• Popular expectations of LG role – LGA level
making local governance work for the poor

11. Findings and Discussion
• Popular expectations of LG role – councillors
making local governance work for the poor

12. Findings and Discussion
• Perceptions of LG roles:
– Significant misunderstandings of the roles of
various LG institutions
– Past practice reflected more than institutional
design
– Councillors’ representative role recognised – to
“bring development” / influence plans
– But not their scrutiny role
making local governance work for the poor

13. Findings and Discussion
• Perceptions of LG performance
making local governance work for the poor

14. Findings and Discussion
• Perceptions of LG performance
making local governance work for the poor

15. Findings and Discussion
Trust
making local governance work for the poor

16. Findings and Discussion
• Perceptions of LG performance:
– Confidence in LG actors declines with distance
• Exception was trust in the President
– Low levels of trust in NGOs, media, opposition
parties, councillors
making local governance work for the poor

17. Findings and Discussion
• Citizens’ engagement with LG processes
– 40% active in community development / self-help
groups
– 23% in farmers’ groups / trade unions
– 57% in church groups
– Voting levels high – around 80%
– Attending community meetings: 29% often; 26%
several times; 22% once or twice; 18% never
making local governance work for the poor

18. Findings and Discussion
• Legitimacy of various actions - demonstrations
/ raising voice
– 79% rural, 80% urban said “would never attend a
demonstration or protest”
– 73% - “we should be more active in questioning
leaders”
– But 95% of village leaders
making local governance work for the poor

19. Findings and Discussion
• Legitimacy of various actions – corruption
making local governance work for the poor

20. Findings and Discussion
• Legitimacy of various actions – corruption
– Low reported corruption in questionnaire
– Very different picture in focus groups
– Corruption reported as widespread, expected, disliked but
unavoidable
– Has become an accepted income of civil servants
– Citizens have strong belief that they cannot do anything to
curb corruption:
• Situational pressure
• Precedents of impunity
• “We can’t change things”
making local governance work for the poor

21. Findings and Discussion
• Perceptions on value of democracy:
making local governance work for the poor

22. Findings and Discussion
• Perceptions on value of democracy:
– 91% believe politicians never or rarely keep
campaign promises
– 93% believe politicians rarely do their best to
“deliver development” after elections
– Dissatisfaction with democratic processes in
practice is very strong and clear
making local governance work for the poor

23. Conclusions and Implications
• Citizens’ scepticism: on democracy, on their
own ability to exert influence, on their ability
to combat corruption
• Low willingness to engage in protest
• Higher performance ratings for closer leaders,
suggests the core idea behind D by D is right
• Corruption, expected but disliked
making local governance work for the poor

24. Conclusions and Implications
• Obstacles to local accountability:
– Councillors scrutiny role is not recognised
– Low trust in key governance institutions
– Citizens’ scepticism – “we can’t change things”
– Vicious circle of impunity and powerlessness
making local governance work for the poor

25. Conclusions and Implications
• Policy Measures:
– Strengthen and extend public education on LG
reforms
– Concerted efforts on corruption – reducing
opportunities, transparency, whistleblower
protections
• Actions by non-state actors:
– Develop low risk tools for citizens’ agency
making local governance work for the poor

26. Asanteni
www.daraja.org • PO Box 736, Njombe • 026 2782197 • daraja@daraja.org