1 / 11

Empirical Work

This article examines the six-year pilot project in the fairly well-to-do rural community of Sirajganj, focusing on the use of fund-matching through taxation to stimulate citizen-driven reform. The research includes ethnographic studies, focus group discussions, participant observations, and documented interviews. The paper is divided into two parts: the first explores the concept of fund-matching through taxation, while the second discusses the implications of speech and voice in the context of governance. The author highlights the importance of taxation as a proxy for discussions on justice, fairness, and rights. The article also examines different models of citizenship and discusses the guarantee of speech and voice in the context of aid conditionality. Furthermore, it explores the implications of different avenues of representation in liberal and socialist democracies. The conclusion considers the implications of fund-matching and the guarantee of speech and voice for Bangladesh.

robertaa
Télécharger la présentation

Empirical Work

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Empirical Work Sirjaganj governance project (SLGDP) with tax conditionality. Six-year pilot Ethnographic research in fairly-well-to-do rural community 9 Focus group discussion 5 participant observation sessions +40 semi-structured documented interviews Iterative methodological process, over 2.5 years

  2. Fund-Matching (taxation) to stimulate citizen driven reform – scope and limits of an emerging donor methodology Two-part paper Fund-matching (taxation) Speech and Voice Jens Stanislawski – Ph.D. candidate, University of Bath (jens.stanislawski@gmail.com)

  3. Part One - fund-matching Why Taxation? Aid as a resource curse (Sobhan 2004 CPD - reduce dependency) Comparative perspective (e.g. USA / Sweden) - obvious governance link Geof Wood’s observation (1994) ‘state without citizens’

  4. Union Example - SLGDP SIRAJGANJ • Exponential Fund-matching (x10) (UNDP/EU) • Range Taka 50-500 / annum - homestead value • Compliance method: Formal rights as precondition: a) pre-consultation b) Open Budget meeting • Compliance still problematic, e.g., by 2006, 90 % compliance in Neogaon Union

  5. Good Gov indications:a) Budget up 300 %b) Public goodsc) Inclusion expandedc) Community policingd) Shalish to Village Courte) Spending + transparency + inclusion = trust over time Contra indications: • Threat of coercion • Problematic representation (‘invitation’) • Tax on property regardless of income

  6. Taxation implies Voice, Speech - in Bangladesh • Causality? Not clear. But, good governance in context of taxation • Heightens relevance of ‘accountablilty’ • Citizenship closer towards contractual paradigm? • Conclusion, Taxation as proxy for wider discussion on ‘justice as fairness’, rights, correlative duties.

  7. Part Two - Speech and Voice Consider hypothetical scenario where state / donors extrapolates SLGDP across a) all unions and, b) central level Good idea? If (and only if) ‘guarantee’ speech / voice Consider new conditionality agreement (switch aid only if fund-matching + speech)

  8. How speech / voice is ‘guaranteed’ elsewhere: • Individual speech in America • Collective voice in Sweden - why? • ‘Conditions’ at ‘formative moment’ of constitutional democracy • Sweden, post industrial, with severe class privilege encoded in law • America, agrarian, ‘class-less’

  9. Divergence of emphasis Two types of citizenship • Liberal (restrict state power), speech, private property • Socialist (expand state power), voice, welfare, common property Each has ‘second avenue’ of representation: • USA - Fair trial = ‘jury of peers’ • Sweden - +80% union density

  10. Interesting Peculiarities • Why does socialist democratic labor party need monarchs? • Why do Americans need all-powerful judiciary with `‘peers’? • Hypo: Last line of defense - tyranny of incumbent!

  11. Conclusion Implications for Bangladesh: • If fund-matching need speech and or voice ‘guaranteed’ - consequences in case of violation! (e.g. fair trial, industrial blockade permit) • Which “second avenue” of representation for agrarian population to national level? • Consider access to fair trial by ‘peers’, basic civil rights as minimum requirements for good governance and citizenship • Finally, ‘peers’ are reason why law is ‘profitable’ in America.

More Related