Search

What does research on informal sector workers and the state entail in the time of Covid-19? The pandemic has limited possibilities for in-person interactions and required adaptations in research approaches. These challenges are exacerbated when the subjects of the research are informal sector workers with limited access to technology and undefined spaces of work. In this article, we argue that the Covid-19 pandemic has magnified distances: between researchers located globally; between researchers and respondents; and between the state and people within informal employment. However, these distances also create new ways of working and opportunities for doing research. We discuss the challenges faced in the field, document the adaptations introduced to ensure robust research in difficult settings, and set out the limitations that remain. We also examine the ethical dimension of confronting dangerous misinformation related to the pandemic while conducting interviews, and the questions it raises about the distance between research and prescriptive advocacy in academia.

This article is part of a Book Forum review of Shandana Khan Mohmand’s book Crafty Oligarchs, Savvy Voters (2019). The Book Forum consists of individual commentaries on this text by three intereste...

The pandemic is in many ways a crisis of governance It has created a set of unique challenges that underscore the need for governments to collect revenue more efficiently and equitably;and to spend it more inclusively, transparently, and accountably, especially on the most vulnerable and marginalised populations In this article, we suggest a set of governance interventions to help create conditions for building effective and inclusive institutions that can support efforts to build back better We propose that the impact of the pandemic can be dealt with through a mix of some interventions that deal with the immediate impacts of the crisis, and other interventions that can transform development in the longer term © 2021 The Authors IDS Bulletin and Institute of Development Studies

Decentralisation is a major policy item across many emerging African democracies. However, repeated waves of local government reforms have had little impact on the region’s continuing problems with governance, and the decentralisation agenda remains incomplete. Yet, within this larger story there are smaller stories, of how different regions and different actors experience differential outcomes in the decentralisation process. Such stories have not been told in enough detail in the overall narrative on Africa’s decentralisation efforts. This IDS Bulletin is an attempt to get at these micro, comparative stories by accumulating evidence on how decentralisation works differently in a series of countries, and the factors that are responsible for differential outcomes. Together, the six articles of this issue interrogate the extent to which decentralisation has affected change at the local level and identify the factors that may allow decentralisation efforts to have greater impact through future reforms.

There is a growing scholarly and policy awareness of the fact that informal institutions that lie wholly or partly outside formal state structures and that take on various governance‐related functions have tremendous potential to strengthen citizen participation, encourage inclusive decision‐making and promote improved service delivery at the local level. Local informal governance institutions that play an active role in promoting citizen participation in decision‐making at the municipal level exist all over the Western Balkans. However, systematic empirical research on these is limited. This article is an initial analytical attempt at bringing together some of the existing literature and data on these institutions in four Western Balkan countries together with our own original research on the topic. Our analysis indicates an important role that these informal institutions play in the areas of citizen participation, inclusive decision‐making and service provision.

In this article we take a comparative look at strategic opportunities and barriers for action on nutrition in Pakistan's four provinces in the post‐devolution context. Provinces have faced historically common constraints of lack of a comprehensive policy and minimal allocations by the state, driven by low visibility of nutrition, siloed working of sectors and weak coalitions. Provinces also face common contextual impediments of poverty, patriarchy, and inadequate health and WASH coverage, with two provinces also constrained by inequitable power structures. Recent focusing events have provided a window of opportunity to the provinces for action on nutrition leading to definite movement towards horizontal coordination for nutrition, upscaled funding and stronger vertical integration. However, there are variations in the extent of coalition building on nutrition, supportive leadership, governance and community outreach. The Pakistan experience shows that strategising for nutrition needs to move beyond a closely tailored national policy to accounting for sub‐national potential and constraints.