GLD Working Papers
Use of Tablet Computers to Implement the Local Governance Performance Index (LGPI) in Tunisia
Lindsay Benstead, Kristen Kao, Pierre F. Landry, Ellen Lust and Dhafer Malouche
This paper shares the advantages and challenges of using tablets to implement a complex survey on local governance and offers practical advice stemming from lessons learned during the successful implementation of the survey. It focuses on the experience of the Program on Governance and Local Development Using tablets offered several advantages. They allow for implementation of a long, complicated questionnaire and to implement survey experiments in which randomized subpopulations received different “treatments” (namely, versions of questions, framing questions, and list experiments). Tablets also make it possible for us to verify the location of respondents according to our sampling design. This geographical information is important at the data analysis stage by making it possible to account for clustering and “neighborhood effects” within small localities. Additionally, tablets allowed us to time the length of each interview precisely, which turned out to be important for catching data collection errors in the field. Using the tablets entailed some particular challenges as well. These included start-up costs of learning new software, programming the questionnaire, and the need to do pretesting and piloting to resolve coding bugs that can potentially introduce errors into the study. There are also important logistical considerations, including the availability of electricity and Internet connectivity. Finally, although tablets remove some sources of survey error, they may introduce others. It is important to recognize these potential problems in order to guard against them.
A revised version of this paper has recently been published in Survey Practice and is available to download here.
Facilitating Facts on the Ground: The "politics of uncertainty" and the governance of housing, land, and tenure in the Palestinian gathering of Qasmiye, South Lebanon
Lebanese and Palestinian authorities unyieldingly proclaim that avoiding naturalization (tawteen) and realizing return (‘awda) is their main priority. This places the Palestinian refugee community in Lebanon under a state of exception in which institutional ambiguity characterizes governance, because any form of normalization and formalization is considered a prelude to tawteen and a threat to ‘awda. This uncertainty is particularly poignant in Lebanon’s unofficial camps, or “gatherings.” Palestinians living in the gatherings do not fall outside the protection regime of the Lebanese state merely because they lack citizenship. They are also partly excluded from UNRWA’s service mandate because they do not reside in official camps. The consequences of this institutional ambiguity are especially pertinent in the governance of housing, land, and tenure. Institutional ambiguity complicates construction and exposes residents of the gatherings to eviction from their properties. At the same time, it determines the coping mechanisms available to residents to deal with these predicaments. In the absence of formal entitlements related to citizenship or camp-residence, inhabitants of the gatherings rely on informal and politicized strategies geared toward maintaining “facts on the ground.” My case study of the governance of property rights in Qasmiye gathering documents how the state of exception in Lebanon’s Palestinian gatherings is upheld by what can be called a “politics of uncertainty”: both Lebanese and Palestinian authorities deliberately maintain the institutional ambiguity of the gatherings. As such, the paper contributes to understanding the endurance and reproduction of marginalizing governance practices—in the specific context of Lebanon’s Palestinian gatherings, but also with reference to other protracted refugee populations and inhabitants of informal settlements across the Arab world.
NGO Accountability from an NGO Perspective: Their Perceptions, Strategies, and Practices
Khaldoun AbouAssi and Deborah L. Trent
Extant research in the nonprofit literature focuses on NGO accountability, framing it relationally. We examine the interplay of several constitutive elements of NGO–donor relationships based on narratives of NGO executives: NGO perceptions of accountability and of their donors, their assumptions about donor perceptions of the NGO role and expectations of NGO accountability, and their responses to shifts in donor funding. We argue that perceptions and practices of accountability not only determine to whom an NGO should be primarily accountable but also shape NGO behavior and alter dependence on donors. As such, accountability is not necessarily a consequence of a relationship but more likely a constitutive element of the relationship. While a favorable response to donor interests might signify upward accountability, it might also suggest that NGOs are more assertive about managing their institutional environments and thereby mitigate their dependence on donors.