Assessing the Direct and Indirect Outcomes of Social Accountability Interventions at the Household, Community, And State Levels: A Case Study of Kalulushi and Solwezi

This study examines the direct and indirect outcomes of social accountability interventions at household, community and state levels in two contrasting Zambian districts: resource-rich but service-constrained Solwezi, and economically depressed Kalulushi. Using a mixed methods design, the research combined structured surveys with community members, semi-structured interviews with officials, CSOs, faith leaders and service providers, focus group discussions, document review and non-participant observation of accountability processes. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Spearman’s rank-order correlations, while qualitative data were examined thematically and triangulated across sources.
Findings show that social accountability is significantly associated with improved welfare and governance outcomes. Higher engagement in social accountability mechanisms correlated with lower reported poverty levels (ρ = -0.62, p < 0.01), better access to basic services (ρ = 0.55, p < 0.01), improved health and education outcomes (ρ = 0.57, p < 0.01), enhanced livelihoods (ρ = 0.50, p < 0.01) and reduced perceptions of corruption (ρ = -0.48, p < 0.05). Respondents reported increased awareness of rights, greater civic participation, more timely and transparent service delivery, strengthened community structures and more efficient, less corrupt management of public resources.
Qualitative evidence highlights shifts from passive receipt of services to active citizenship, especially among women and youth, and documents cases where citizen monitoring exposed ghost projects, inflated contracts and fake beneficiary lists, triggering corrective action and procedural reforms. Indirect outcomes include greater empowerment, social cohesion, trust and institutional legitimacy, contributing to more collaborative state–society relations. The study concludes that when embedded in supportive legal, institutional and informational environments, social accountability functions as both a direct driver of service improvements and an indirect catalyst for inclusive, poverty-reducing and democratic governance.

social accountability; governance; citizen engagement; service delivery; community monitoring; corruption; empowerment; Zambia

1. Acemoglu, D. & Robinson, J. A. (2019). The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, and the Fate of Liberty. Penguin Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. ActionAid Zambia. (2022). Strengthening Civic Participation in Local Governance and Accountability Processes. Lusaka: ActionAid. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Afrobarometer. (2017). Afrobarometer Round 7: Civic Engagement in Zambia. [Online] Available at: https://www.afrobarometer.org/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Afrobarometer. (2018). Afrobarometer Round 7: Summary of Results for Zambia. [Online] Available at: https://www.afrobarometer.org/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Babbie, E. (2013). The practice of social research (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Biesta, G. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophy of education. Educational Theory, 60(1), 1-18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Biesta, G. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophy of education. Educational Theory, 60(1), 1-18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bjorkman, M., & Svensson, J. (2009). Power to the people: Evidence from a randomized field experiment on community-based monitoring in Uganda. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(2), 735–769. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2009.124.2.735 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bjorkman, M., & Svensson, J. (2009). Power to the People: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment of a Community-Based Monitoring Project in Uganda. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(2), 735-769. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Björkman, M., & Svensson, J. (2009). Power to the people: Evidence from a randomized field experiment on community-based monitoring in Uganda. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(2), 735–769. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2010). Public sector management reform in developing countries: Perspectives beyond NPM orthodoxy. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Wetterberg, A. (2016). Gauging the effects of social accountability on services, governance, and citizen empowerment. Public Administration Review, 76(2), 274–286. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Fox, J. (2015). Social accountability: What does the evidence really say? World Development, 72, 346–361. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K. M., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector's field guide. Family Health International. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Tongco, M. D. C. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 5, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. CARE International. (2012). Reproductive Health Scorecard in Malawi: A tool for improving maternal health service delivery. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. CARE International. (2012). Reproductive health scorecard in Malawi. CARE Malawi. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Chinsinga, B., & Zulu, T. (2014). The contested terrain of accountability in contexts of fragile governance: The case of local government reforms in Malawi. IDS Bulletin, 45(5), 69–80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Civil Society for Poverty Reduction (CSPR). (2016). Social Accountability in Poverty Reduction: Lessons from Zambia. Lusaka: CSPR. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Civil Society for Poverty Reduction (CSPR). (2022). Voice and Accountability Project Final Report. Lusaka, Zambia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. CSPR & ActionAid Zambia. (2014). Social Accountability and the Role of Civil Society in the Monitoring of Social Cash Transfer Programs in Zambia. Civil Society for Poverty Reduction & ActionAid Zambia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. da Silva, J. G. (2013). The Zero Hunger Strategy: Brazil’s experience. FAO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. FAO. (2023). Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty launched at G20 Summit. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research (5th ed.). London: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Fox, J. (2015). Social accountability: What does the evidence really say? World Development, 72, 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Fox, J. (2015). Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say? World Development, 72, 346-361. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Fox, J. (2015). Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say? World Development, 72, 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Gaventa, J., & Barrett, G. (2012). Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. World Development, 40(12), 2399–2410. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Gaventa, J., & Barrett, G. (2012). So What Difference Does It Make? Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement. IDS Working Papers, 2012(416), 1-38. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Gaventa, J., & Barrett, G. (2015). So what difference does it make? Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. IDS Working Paper 347. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. GIZ (German Corporation for International Cooperation). (2015). Water user associations and grievance redress systems: A case study. GIZ. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Goetz, A. M., & Jenkins, R. (2005). Reinventing accountability: Making democracy work for human development. Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ). (2020). Eighth National Development Plan (2022–2026). Lusaka, Zambia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. GRZ (Government of the Republic of Zambia). (2020). Solwezi District Development Plan. Ministry of Finance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Higgins, S., & O’Neill, M. (2019). Engaging communities in education: Parent-teacher associations and school governance boards in Tanzania and Ethiopia. International Education Journal, 18(3), 56-69. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. International Budget Partnership (IBP). (2019). How Participatory Budgeting Improves Service Delivery for the Poor. Washington, DC: IBP. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. International Budget Partnership. (2017). How Participatory Budgeting Improves Service Delivery and Enhances Accountability. Retrieved from https://internationalbudget.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR). (2020). The Role of Educated Citizens in Promoting Social Justice. Lusaka: JCTR. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Joshi, A. (2010). Do They Work? Assessing the Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives in Service Delivery. Development Policy Review, 28(4), 405-427. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Joshi, A. (2017). Legal Empowerment and Social Accountability: Complementary Strategies Toward Rights-Based Development in Health? World Development, 99, 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Joshi, A., & Houtzager, P. (2012). Widgets or watchdogs? Conceptual explorations in social accountability. Public Management Review, 14(2), 145–162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Joshi, A., & Houtzager, P. P. (2012). Widgets or watchdogs? Conceptual explorations in social accountability. Public Management Review, 14(2), 145–162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Lokina, R. B., et al. (2016). Social accountability in the water and sanitation sectors: Lessons from Zambia. World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Malena, C., Forster, R., & Singh, J. (2004). Social accountability: An introduction to the concept and emerging practice. Social Development Papers, 76. World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Mbate, M. (2018). Delivering public services in Kenya: The promise and limits of the Huduma initiative. Policy Studies, 39(4), 408–425. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. McGee, R., & Gaventa, J. (2011). Shifting power? Assessing the impact of transparency and accountability initiatives. Institute of Development Studies (IDS). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. McGee, R., & Gaventa, J. (2016). Reviewing the Evidence on the Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives. IDS Working Paper 383. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. McNeil, M., & Malena, C. (2010). Democracy, Transparency, and Accountability: Making Accountability Work. World Bank Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Mwebaza, R. (2017). The role of PTAs and SGBs in educational governance in Tanzania and Ethiopia. Education Governance Review, 14(4), 212-225. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. O’Meally, S. (2013). Mapping Context for Social Accountability: A Resource Paper. Social Development Department, World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. O’Meally, S. C. (2013). Mapping context for social accountability: A resource paper. World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. OECD. (2017). Development Co-operation Report 2017: Data for Development. OECD Publishing, Paris. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Open Institute. (2012). SMS-based Feedback Systems and Health Service Delivery in Kenya. Open Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Oxfam. (2018). Digital tools for social accountability in Zambia: Mobile feedback systems and community action cycles. Oxfam. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Pande, R. (2012). Can Transparency Improve Governance? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Rural India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1797-1834. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. Rocha Menocal, A., & Sharma, B. (2018). Citizen Engagement: A Game Changer for Development?. ODI Working Paper. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292430 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Tembo, F. (2013). Citizen Engagement and Governance in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Case Study of the Mwananchi Programme in Zambia. Journal of African Governance, 3(1), 58-75. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. Tembo, F. (2013). Rethinking social accountability in Africa: Lessons from the Mwananchi Programme. Overseas Development Institute (ODI). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Tembo, F. (2013). The Mwananchi Programme and its impact on social accountability in Zambia and other African countries. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Tembo, F. (2016). Citizen Voice and Action in Service Delivery: Insights from the Field. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. Tembo, F. (2019). Social accountability and poverty reduction in Zambia: An overview of current practices and gaps. Zambian Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 3(1), 17–29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. Transparency International Zambia. (2021). Youth Engagement in Social Accountability: A Case Study of Zambia. Lusaka: TIZ. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. Transparency International. (2019). The Ignored Pandemic: How Corruption in Healthcare Service Delivery Threatens Universal Health Coverage. Berlin: TI. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

91. Transparency International. (2020). Corruption Perceptions Index 2020: Sub-Saharan Africa Regional Analysis. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre. (2019). Citizen Engagement in Anti-Corruption Efforts in East and Southern Africa. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. UNDP & CIVICUS. (2015–2022). Civic Space and Democratic Accountability Reports. Various issues. New York: UNDP. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

94. UNDP Zambia. (2020). Gender Equality Strategy: Accelerating the Empowerment of Women and Girls. Lusaka: United Nations Development Programme. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

95. UNDP. (2021). Human Development Report 2021: Uncertain Times, Unsettled Lives – Shaping our Future in a Transforming World. New York: United Nations Development Programme. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

96. UNICEF Zambia. (2018). Child Poverty in Zambia: A Multidimensional Approach. Lusaka: UNICEF. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

97. Waddell, R. (2015). Radio as a tool for social accountability in Zambia: Enhancing citizen engagement through media. Journal of International Communication, 22(1), 24-38. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

98. Wampler, B. (2010). Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability. University of Notre Dame Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

99. World Bank. (2011). The World Bank Annual Report 2011: Social Accountability and Its Impact on Development. The World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

100. World Bank. (2013). Building accountability: The role of community scorecards in enhancing service delivery in Malawi. World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

101. World Bank. (2016–2021). World Bank Governance Global Practice Reports. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

102. World Bank. (2017). Social accountability and demand for good governance: A synthesis of the World Bank's experience. Washington, DC: World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

103. World Bank. (2017). World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law. Washington, DC: World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

104. World Bank. (2018). Social Accountability and Service Delivery: Evaluating the Evidence. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

105. World Bank. (2023). World Bank launches results-based scorecard to track development impact. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

106. World Development Report. (2016). Governance and the Law. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

107. World Vision Zambia. (2016). Citizens Voice and Action: Final Programme Evaluation Report. Lusaka, Zambia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

108. World Vision. (2020). Citizen Voice and Action: Empowering Communities to Influence Government Accountability. Monrovia, CA: World Vision International. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

109. Zambia Statistics Agency. (2021). Zambia Living Conditions Monitoring Survey (LCMS) 2015–2020. Lusaka: ZamStats. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

110. Zambian Governance Foundation. (2019). Strengthening Local Governance Through Social Accountability Tools. Lusaka: ZGF. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• An Exploration of Stakeholders Perceived Mitigation Measures for Addressing Sanitation Challenges in George Compound in Lusaka Zambia
• Public Participation in Sustainable Development Programs: Examining Public Participation Methods and Levels at Pustaka Negeri Sarawak
• Responding to Climate Change through Livelihood Diversification: Implications of Household Economic Well-Being in Coastal Greater Accra
• Teacher Character Development Through Virtue and Eudaimonia: Insights from Nominal Group Technique (NGT)
• Transformation of Muslim Friendly Hospitality: An Overview of Shariah Compliant Tourism Development in Malaysia