An ESRC Research Project

Wor kin g Paper 2

Good governance, local government,

accountability and ser vice deliver y in
Tanzania
Exploring the context for creating a local
governance performance index

Anna Md ee and Lisa Th or ley

Oc tob er 2016
Table of contents
Project background ..................................................................................................................................... 3
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 The system in theory ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 The system in practice ..................................................................................................................... 5
2. Tanzania: governance and accountability reform .............................................................................. 6
2.1 The rules in theory ........................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 What happens in practice ................................................................................................................ 7
2.3 Performance and accountability of LGAs in Tanzania ............................................................ 10
2.4 The problem of who is accountable ............................................................................................ 13
2.5 Civil society initiatives in measuring governance in Tanzania ................................................. 16
3. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 17
References .................................................................................................................................................. 19

List of tables and figures

Table 1: How much of the time do you think your LGC will try their best to listen to what you
have to say? ................................................................................................................................................ 12
Table 2: How much of the time do you think your village/mtaa chairperson will try their best to
listen to what you have to say? ................................................................................................................ 12

Figure 1: IIAG trends for Tanzania 2011–2014.................................................................................... 8

Figure 2: Delivery of public services in Tanzania ................................................................................ 10
Figure 3: Changes in levels of trust in local government councils, 18 countries, 2005–15
(percentage points).................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4: Change in perceived corruption among local government councillors, 17 countries,
2005–15 (percentage points) ................................................................................................................... 12

2
Project background
In 2012, former Director of the Foundation for Civil Society (FCS) in Tanzania, John Ulanga,
posed the question of whether a local governance performance index might stimulate greater
public engagement in holding local leaders and institutions to account for their performance in
delivering services and reducing poverty in the country.
To respond to this question, the University of Mzumbe, in partnership with the FCS and the
International NGO Training and Resource Centre (INTRAC) (UK), began to research the viability
and value of such an index at the district level in Tanzania. The Overseas Development Institute
(ODI) in London joined the project in 2015.
With funding from the UK Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC)/Department for
International Development (DFID) from 2014 to 2017, the partners will explore whether it is
possible to create an index that reflects the performance of different local governments. More
specifically, the research wants to know how such an index might be used to encourage local
governments to prioritise the needs of the poorest and most excluded. Further, can citizens use
such an index to demand accountability from local leaders and civil servants?

3
List of abbreviations
AcT Accountability in Tanzania
CHF Community Health Fund
CHSB Council Health Service Board
CSDC Client Service Delivery Charter
DbyD Decentralisation by Devolution
DFID Department for International Development
ESRC Economic & Social Research Council
FCS Foundation for Civil Society
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HCP Health Care Professional
IDI In-Depth Interview
IIAG Ibrahim Index of African Governance
INTRAC International NGO Training and Resource Centre
LGA Local Government Authority
LHRC Legal Human Rights Centre
NFGG National Framework for Good Governance
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
ODI Overseas Development Institute
OGP Open Government Partnership
OPHI Oxford Policy Management Institute
P4P Payment for Performance
PSSN Productive Social Safety Net
REPOA Research on Poverty Alleviation
TASAF Tanzania Social Action Fund
TDV Tanzania Development Vision
UK United Kingdom
UNDP UN Development Programme
URT United Republic of Tanzania
WHO World Health Organization

4
1. Summary
A performance index for local governance in Tanzania needs to provide a clear indication of how
effectively local government and partners are delivering public services, supporting livelihoods and
ensuring peace and security.
The selection of indicators for the creation of an index is critical if it is to be used as a mechanism
to hold local government to account. Clear lines of responsibility and accountability need to be
incorporated into the selection of indicators so the index can be applied at the local level.
To help in selecting relevant and context-specific indicators for an index of local governance
performance, this paper sets out the context of good governance, local governance, accountability
and local service delivery in Tanzania.

1.1 The system in theory

In 1999, Tanzania set out Vision 2025, which establishes a strategy to transform Tanzania into a
middle-income country. Good governance is an integral component of this. The 1999 National
Framework for Good Governance (NFGG) detailed policy components of this strategy.
Decentralisation by Devolution (DbyD) became a core strategy for delivery: with the aim of
creating bottom-up planning processes and service delivery closer to the service users, district
government and ward and village/street councils were given responsibility for shaping
development. The 2005 Poverty Reduction Strategy (MKUKUTA) also enshrines the importance
of good governance, participation, accountability and the rule of law.

1.2 The system in practice

Improvements in governance are credited with driving Tanzania’s high economic growth rates
over the past decade. However, since 2011, indicators of good governance have declined (IIAG,
2015), as has the perception of citizens of the performance of their local governments and
representatives.
In practice, DbyD has been a partial process. It seems to have resulted in considerable
responsibilities being passed to village/street level without the same decentralisation of revenue
generation or distribution. The system of executive and representative local government exists
alongside a presidentially appointed system of regional and district commissioners. Religious
institutions and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are also significant actors in service
delivery and governance. Both are often better resourced than their local government counterparts.
Therefore, in practice, systems of local governance in Tanzania are highly complex and have
multiple and contested lines of power. Responsibilities and accountability are unclear at all levels
of the system. This makes attempts to drive citizen-led accountability fundamentally flawed. Such
interventions seek to identify violations from the rules in theory. However, we find that the gap
between these and the rules in practice is too wide to be breached through these types of initiatives.
Therefore, we need to do further work to understand lines of accountability in the system, to
identify where it might be possible to select indicators that could drive change that improves
service delivery and better includes the concerns of the poorest.

5
2. Tanzania: governance and accountability reform

2.1 The rules in theory

The government of Tanzania has a policy framework for development and poverty reduction that
emphasises good governance and a growing economy.
Tanzania Development Vision 2025
The Tanzania Development Vision (TDV) 2025 was formulated in 1999. This describes Tanzania
of 2025 as a nation imbued with five main attributes: high quality livelihoods; peace, stability and
unity; good governance; a well-educated and learning society; and a competitive economy capable
of producing sustainable growth and shared benefits. By 2025, Tanzania should have gone through
the transition from being a least developed country to become a progressive middle-income
country, with a high level of human development being a key priority. TDV’s effective realisation
hinged on good governance and a competitive economy (Daima Associates, 2009: 11).
National Framework for Good Governance
In 1999, the government also formulated the NFGG as a guide to institute good governance in
the country (URT, 1999). Defining ‘good governance’ as ‘the exercise of official powers in the
management of the country’s resources in an effort to increase and utilise such resources for the
betterment of life’, the NFGG envisaged a broad-based national partnership for development of
good governance that included central and local governments, the private sector and faith-based
and civil society organisations. The NFGG focuses on the following: 1) participation of the people
in decision-making; 2) constitutionalism, rule of law, protection of human rights and
administration of justice; 3) a legal and regulatory framework for private sector development; 4)
gender equity; 5) accountability, transparency and integrity in the management of public affairs; 6)
electoral democracy; and 7) greater public service capabilities to deliver services efficiently and
effectively. To enable realisation of the NFGG, the government has implemented several key and
cross-cutting governance reforms. These include the Public Service Reform Programme, the Local
Government Reform Programme, the Legal Sector Reform Programme and the Public Financial
Management Reform Programme. In line with these reforms, sector specific programmes have
been undertaken to improve service delivery through the implementation of DbyD. These
programmes constitute the policy and strategic framework for enhancing accountability,
transparency and integrity in the use of public resources and to improve service delivery.
Other than core reforms, there are also several institutions that focus on accountability and
governance, including the Ethics Secretariat, the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau
and the Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance. Other accountability institutions
include the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, the National Audit Office and the
Parliamentary Watchdog Committees. With specific regard to local governments and
accountability, the National Audit Office produces annual reports that are concerned with
governance and local government authorities (LGAs). Other than establishing institutions to
address governance, Tanzania has also enacted laws that require leaders and senior public officials
to disclose their incomes and assets to the Ethics Secretariat as a measure to instil integrity in
public life (Tripp, 2012).

6
National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty
Cluster III of MKUKUTA is specifically concerned with governance and accountability (URT,
2005).1 The broad outcomes of Cluster III are: 1) democracy, good governance, human rights and
the rule of law deepened and ensured; 2) peace, political stability, social cohesion and national
unity consolidated and sustained; 3) accountable, responsive, effective and efficient leadership in
public service ensured; and 4) equity in accessing public resources and services ensured. To
accomplish these, MKUKUTA II has seven sets of governance goals, with 21 accompanying
indicators. The goals are:
1. Structures and systems of governance as well as the rule of law are democratic,
participatory, representative, accountable and inclusive.
2. Equitable allocation of public resources with corruption effectively addressed.
3. Effective public service framework in place to provide foundation for service delivery
improvement and poverty reduction.
4. Rights of the poor and vulnerable groups are protected and promoted in the justice system.
5. Reduction of political and social exclusion and intolerance.
6. Improved personal security, reduced crime, elimination of sexual abuse and domestic
violence.
7. Natural cultural identities enhanced and promoted.
Local government: Decentralisation by Devolution
Since 1999, the Tanzanian government has been actively pursuing an incremental strategy of what
is referred to as DbyD. This refers to the transfer of power and authority from central government
to subnational tiers of government. It is based on the principle of subsidiarity. ‘Local governments
through their elected leaders have a responsibility for social development and public service
provision within their areas of jurisdiction; facilitation of maintenance of law and order and
promotion of local development through participatory processes’ (Muro and Mamusonge, 2015:
106). Decentralisation relies on the effective transfer of power, authority and resources from the
central state. Participation is expected to empower citizens and also supports Nyerere’s concept of
self-reliance, that participation is an obligation if one is to build a nation (ibid.). Therefore,
participation by citizens is not only giving their opinions but also contributing their labour and
finance for community development initiatives, such as school classroom building (Tidemand et
al., 2008).

2.2 What happens in practice

The gap between policy in theory and policy implementation in practice is often significant (Wild
et al., 2015). In this section we explore how systems of local government and service delivery are
operating in practice. This analysis reveals the complexity of the system and some of the challenges
in revealing lines of accountability.
The policy framework outlined above has enabled Tanzania to work with development partners
on political and governance reform. Between 2000 and 2010, the Tanzania government received
an estimated $568 million in project support for governance and political reform, of which nearly
a fifth ($109,249,097) was for governance alone (Tripp, 2012). Improvements in governance in this

1Cluster I is concerned with Growth and Reduction of Income poverty, whereas Cluster II pertains to Improvement of
Quality of Life and Social Well-being.

7
period are partly credited for Tanzania’s improving rates of gross domestic product (GDP) growth
(Gray and Khan, 2010).
However, since 2011, the Ibrahim Index for African Governance (IIAG) suggests, Tanzania has
been on a negative trend, with weakened performance in three out of the four conceptual
governance categories.2 A slight positive trend in human development is noted, reflecting
improvements in education and health measures.
Figure 1: IIAG trends for Tanzania 2011–2014 Source: IIAG (2015).

Strong GDP growth in Tanzania has not resulted in dramatic reductions in poverty, with
approximately 30% of the population living in income poverty as defined by the national poverty
line (Kessy et al., 2013). However, data from the Multidimensional Poverty Index suggests that in
Tanzania 64% of the population are poor, with 31.3% of these people living in extreme poverty
(OPHI, 2015).
Figure 2 represents an attempt to capture the complexity of lines of responsibility and service
delivery in Tanzania. It has been created with reference to the literature and based on stakeholder
interviewing for this research. It shows a central column with planning being driven from the
village/street level through the citizens (wanachi) and their elected representatives. Plans are
consolidated and sent upwards through the ward and district executives to the President’s Office
for Regional Administration and Local Government. This office coordinates with the president
and relevant national ministries back down the chain. In addition to this, the president appoints
regional and district commissioners. Religious institutions and NGOs also play a significant role

2Categories for IIAG: Safety and Rule of Law; Participation and Human Rights; Sustainable Economic Opportunity; and
Human Development.

8
in service delivery at the local level, and in shaping policy at the national level. This results in
multiple lines of accountability within local governance systems.
Despite a rhetoric of participation and decentralisation, central government still exerts a great deal
of control over local service delivery through the allocation of resources and control over policy.
There are two main types of financial transfer for service delivery in LGAs: recurrent block grants
and capital development grants. While subventions and donor basket funds form part of the
‘development budget’, in practice they fund expenditures that are recurrent in nature. Capital
development grants fund LGA infrastructure and include the discretionary Local Government
Development Grant and sector development grants (Tidemand et al., 2015). Some of these grants
are performance-based (Janus and Keijzer, 2015). LGAs have very little revenue collection powers
–limited to around 2–6% (Hoffman, 2006) – and therefore are highly dependent on funds from
central government (Chaligha, 2014; Chaligha et al., 2007).
Central government ministries also have control over how civil servants are employed and
deployed to LGAs, particularly in the health and education sectors. Although LGAs can engage
additional staff (Tidemand et al., 2015), they do not have the power to sack underperforming
teachers.3 LGAs also have limited discretion in providing primary education because of budgetary
allocations that are directed by the Primary Education Development Programme (Tidemand et al.,
2008). Tidemand et al. (2015) note clear inequalities in the distribution of funds from central
government. For example, Kibaha district council receives four times the allocation of funds from
central government that Sumbawanga receives.
It is important to note the wide-ranging nature of responsibilities of village and street councils,
including peace and security, land allocations, social welfare and social service delivery, water,
environment and so on (see Figure 2). Considerable responsibility for ‘development’ is placed on
the village level and on citizens themselves through their volunteer labour or financial
contributions (Boesten et al., 2011; Green, 2014). The decentralisation of service delivery can also
lead to elite capture at the local level and even to increased inequality in access for the poorest and
most disadvantaged (see for example Cleaver and Toner, 2006, on the water sector).

3 Only the Teacher Service Commission has the power and authority to sack underperforming teachers.

9
Figure 2: Delivery of public services in Tanzania

2.3 Performance and accountability of LGAs in Tanzania

In theory, LGAs can be held accountable for service delivery through the 2000 Client Service
Delivery Charter (CSDC). The CSDC is a social agreement between a public service provider and
the user. It was developed as part of the public sector reform process that took place in Tanzania

10
in the 1990s (Njunwa, 2011).4 As Venugopal and Yilmaz (2010) note, it specifies what standards
should be offered, and it also gives users information on how to redress services providers if they
fail to meet the set standards. However, the CSDC is not widely used either by individuals or civil
society as information about it is lacking.5 Furthermore, it is not legally binding.
Other than the clear limitations of the CSDC, numerous reasons have been cited as to why there
is poor and inadequate accountability and governance within LGAs. These include a lack of
infrastructure and corruption, poor access to information,6 technocratic procedures, a culture that
does not promote transparency, low capacity and a lack of citizen participation (Muro and
Namusonge, 2015). One study also recently revealed that local government uses accounting
strategies to make its activities appear legitimate and effective (Goddard and Mzenzi, 2015)
Hoffman (2006: 206) concludes that, in Tanzania, ‘individuals define political accountability of
local governments primarily in terms of the amount of visible and tangible services they provide’.
Over the past decade, Tanzania’s policy and institutional reforms in governance do not appear to
have resulted in perceived improvements in the performance of local government. Figure 3 shows
that trust in local government in Tanzania declined by 8 percentage points between 2005/06 and
2014/15 (Aiko et al., 2016). Figure 4 shows a 15 percentage point increase in the belief that local
councillors are corrupt (ibid.).
Figure 3: Changes in levels of trust in local government councils, 18 countries, 2005–15
(percentage points)

Source: Aiko et al. (2016)

4 For an overview of a client service charter, see www.mof.go.tz/index.php?option=com_content&id=20&Itemid=116

5 All ministries in Tanzania have such charters, but it is not clear if they are utilised.
6 With specific reference to accessing information, this for many can be problematic as a quarter of Tanzanians who reside

in rural areas do not have access to a radio, only 9% have a TV and, even if 66% have access to a mobile phone, many women
have less access. Moreover, as noted by the Tanganyika Law Society (2014), the right to information is not an absolute right,
as stipulated in Article XIX (2004). Information on, for example, resources for primary service providers such as schools and
hospitals does not have to be disclosed to the public. Also, it has been found that government officials believe there are
more restrictions on the freedom of information than there were in the past, even if the government has in place numerous
mechanisms to facilitate with the dissemination of information (ibid.). This lack of transparency may hinder accountability
at the local level, and ultimately an index concerned with accountability of services at a local level.

11
Figure 4: Change in perceived corruption among local government councillors, 17
countries, 2005–15 (percentage points)

Source: Aiko et al. (2016).

Citizens are not convinced it is their responsibility to hold LGAs accountable for service delivery.
When asked the question, ‘Who should be responsible for making sure that, once elected, local
government councillors do their jobs?’, only 36% believed it should be the voters who should hold
their LGAs accountable (REPOA, 2014). Citizens are also less likely to engage with their LGAs as
there is a perception their concerns will not be heard or taken seriously(Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1: How much of the time do you think your LGC will try their best to listen to what
you have to say?
Urban Rural Male Female Zanzibar Mainland Total
Never 26 22 23 24 40 23 24
Only 55 55 56 54 56 55 55
sometimes
Often 17 19 18 19 4 19 18
Always 1 3 3 2 - 2 2
Don’t know - 1 - 1 - 1 1
Source: REPOA (2014).
Table 2: How much of the time do you think your village/mtaa chairperson will try their
best to listen to what you have to say?
Urban Rural Male Female Zanzibar Mainland Total
Never 19 14 16 16 34 15 16
Only sometimes 48 48 47 49 59 48 48
Often 28 31 31 28 5 31 30
Always 5 6 6 6 1 6 6
Don’t know - 1 - 1 - 1 1
Source: REPOA (2014).
These tables show a greater belief that a village-level representative will listen to their concerns
than is the case for representatives at the district level. Over 50% of rural people believed that their
councils were doing either very badly or fairly badly, with only 8% of rural people saying they were

12
doing very well. Moreover, when asked if local revenues – which, as noted, represent a small
amount of money in comparison with what LGAs receive from central government and block
grants – were used well, the responses were also quite damning: 56% indicated that they thought
revenues were used either very badly or fairly badly. Only 6% thought local revenues were used
well (REPOA, 2014).
In Meru district in Arusha, 85% of those who were involved in the research indicated that they
would participate in community projects if there was strong leadership from the within LGAs; if
there was transparency; and also if there was accountability. However, even if community
participation is seen as important, and there is a conducive environment of accountability, 45% of
community members indicated that a lack of skills, be these administrative or project management,
had a negative impact on a citizen’s ability to participate (Muro and Namusonge, 2015).

2.4 The problem of who is accountable

In this section we explore aspects of the health care system and the Tanzania Social Action Fund
(TASAF) that illustrate the lack of clarity over responsibility for performance and accountability
at the level of local government. We could have selected examples from a wide range of sectors –
all of which suffer from similar problems. Indeed, if we view local government only from
individual sectors we may fail to see patterns of how the ward and village levels of government
have high levels of responsibility placed on them while having very resource to implement national
policies.
Central government recruit health care professionals (HCPs) (though is it the responsibility of
LGAs to train, develop, reward and discipline HCPs) and also deploy HCPs to respective districts
depending on the latter’s needs. However, in a country where there are acute shortages of HCPs,
this in itself is highly problematic. For example, it is estimated that there is one doctor per 25,000
people and one nurse per 10,000. This is, as noted by the World Health Organization (WHO), well
below the recommended minimum, insofar as there should be either 23 nurses or doctors per
10,000 people. The acute shortages of HCPs, as observed by Kruk et al. (2010), means less than
half of all births are attended by a skilled medical practitioner. This in itself is a major challenge,
and also raises a question: if this is a reality, how can LGAs be held accountable for health care
service delivery if there is already an acute shortage of medical practitioners? For example, in
Kongwa district, out of a required 664 HCPs, there were as of 2012 only 327. Also, as observed
by Mkoka et al. (2015), there is inequality of access to HCPs: more work in urban areas than in
rural areas, especially the hardest-to-reach areas.
Not only is there is a clear shortage of HCPs but also only 19% of primary health facilities in
Tanzania have access to basic infrastructure. Infrastructure includes electricity, clean water and
improved sanitation. It is this lack of basic infrastructure that is noted by Mkoka et al. (2015) as a
cause for concern, as a lack of facilities and poor working conditions limit the abilities of already
stretched HCPs to be able to do their job. There are considerable differences between urban and
rural areas, with 60% of urban areas having access to basic infrastructure compared with 5% in
rural areas of the country. Two clinics out of 10 do not have access to basic equipment
(thermometer, weighing scales, and a stethoscope). With regard to medication, at any given time
primary health facilities will be without a quarter of basic drugs. Absenteeism is also a cause for
concern. In urban areas, when random spots checks were conducted, one third of medical staff
where absent. This is less the case in rural areas, with the figure at 17% (World Bank, 2012). One
of the reasons why absenteeism is a problem is that many LGAs do not provide staff with a

13
conducive living environment –nor is there an opportunity for career advancement and training is
not taken seriously (Kruk et al., 2010).
In partnership with donors such as the government of Norway there has been some
experimentation with systems of Payment for Performance (P4P). The rationale behind this policy
is that, by providing a financial incentive to staff who are employed within the health care system,
services will improve. However, as noted by Chimhutu et al. (2015) from empirical data, the
introduction of such schemes within Tanzania has proved controversial, specifically because
donors have marginalised the Tanzanian government, affording it limited power and voice within
these discussions. Also, there is a district lack of evidence as to the effectiveness of P4Ps.
Community Health Funds and the pro-poor exemption policy
Since 2001, Tanzanian citizens who reside in rural areas have been encouraged to join community-
based prepayment schemes, or, as they are commonly known Community Health Funds (CHFs).
As per the 2001 Community Health Fund Act, the objectives of the fund are 1) to mobilise financial
resources from the community for the provision of health care services to its members; 2) to
provide quality and affordable health care services through a sustainable financial mechanism; and
3) to improve health care service management in the communities through decentralisation by
empowering communities in making decisions and by contributing on matters affecting their health
(URT, 2001). Every household is entitled to join the scheme at a cost of between TSh 5,000 and
30,000. The fees vary depending on where one lives as they are set at the discretion of the district
and municipal councils, with the government in theory matching the fee. They are managed and
monitored by the Council Health Service Boards (CHSBs); representatives of this board work
closely with ward development committees to ensure members are mobilised, fees are paid, a
membership base is recorded and recommendations from service users are brought to the attention
of the CHSB. In effect, the CHSBs have a dual role, as they are both the provider and the purchaser,
insofar as they implement CHFs and also provide health care facilities (Idd et al., 2013).
Upon joining the scheme, the household will be issued with a certificate that is valid for a year and
will cover up to six people to access basic primary health care and medication. Mtei and Mulligan
(2007) state that the certificate covers only the household head and those under the age of 18. Even
if there is some ambiguity, as the government is aware that not all of those who are in areas where
the scheme operates can afford the user fees, a wavier policy was also included in the 2001
Community Health Fund Act.
For one to qualify for a waiver, and therefore to have access to the CHF, there is a specific process
to go through.7 First, those who are in need should present themselves to their local village council.
It is then the responsibility of the village council to present the case to the ward health committee.
If the ward health committee believes there is cause to issue a waiver then the case will be forwarded
to the council health services. It is here the CHF membership card will be issued. On issuing a
card, the district is expected to subsidise it though pro-poor funding that should be allocated from
central government. Deciding on the criteria for exemption is left to the ward level.
‘We have many exemption eligibility criteria that were supposed to be used for CHF exemption. For
example, the food poor, those with very poor houses, patients suffering from chronic diseases, the
disabled, and the elderly people. We decided to only provide exemption to elders above 60 years and

7 The CHF is a district-level voluntary prepayment scheme, introduced in parallel with user fees at public health facilities that
targets the population living in rural areas and/or employed in the informal sector.

14
 who are not able to pay. But as time goes, we will add more eligibility criteria’ (IDI with district health
manager, taken from Idd et al., 2013: 303).

This suggests the waiver could lead to inequality of access depending on where one resides in
Tanzania (Burns and Mantel, 2006). Only minimal efforts are made by health workers, village
leaders and district officials to inform people about the waiver policy. This in itself restricts
transparency and ultimately accountability in the scheme (ORGUT, 2009). However, the financial
reality of the scheme also means exemptions cannot be honoured in practice.
‘We usually hold meetings for mobilizing community members to join CHF, the message from the
district is that people should pay membership contributions and join the scheme, we hardly tell them
about exemption criteria because the district officials explained to us that they don’t receive any
financial support from the Central government and exemptions erode CHF financial stability’ (IDI
with ten cell leader, taken from Idd et al., 2013: 302–3).

Research conducted in Lindi and Iramba by Maluka and Bukagile (2014) concluded that uptake of
CHFs varied. In Lindi it was found that enrolment (0.4%) was low because of high premiums and
a limited supply of basic drugs, and that there was a lack of trust in HCPs and providers. Local
politics were also a reason behind low enrolment. In Iramba, the research found high uptake,
(28.1%) of CHFs because there the HCF had a good supply of drugs and there was a strong sense
of engagement between services users, providers and LGAs. One thing to take into consideration,
though, is that many people choose not to enrol because they see no need to – as they can simply
pay user fees as and when they have to. This may explain why, as of 2011, national coverage was
only 7.9%.
Tanzanian Social Action Fund
TASAF has recently introduced a Productive Social Safety Net (PSSN).8 This is designed to
address poverty at the household level and help those who live under the basic needs poverty line,
who are unable to afford basic services such as education and health care. In October 2015, the
Tanzanian government signed a memorandum of understanding with the UK Department for
International Development (DFID). DFID has agreed to provide £110 million for the scale-up of
the PSSN over a five-year period. During this time it is envisioned that 1 million households and
up to 5 million people will benefit from the project, targeted by the provisions of conditional cash
transfers and a guaranteed 60 days per year paid employment for one household member.9
The programme uses a system of community-based targeting, which is in itself very vulnerable to
elite capture (Boesten et al., 2011). Village/mtaa leaders identify beneficiaries at public meetings.
At a first public meeting, ward community development officers outline the characteristics of
households that could be included. At a second public meeting, a list of names is presented. Those
who meet the criteria are given a questionnaire. There is then a third public meeting to explain
which households are included.. If successful, beneficiaries must agree to send their children to
school and pregnant women should agree to attend a health care facility – the logic being that
increased attendance at schools will break the cycle of poverty and also decrease child mortality
and improve women’s health. TASAF outlines a Grievance Resolution Mechanism in case of
disputes over the selection of beneficiaries, but it is very unclear how this operates in practice and
who makes the decisions.TASAF does recognise that it is difficult for beneficiaries to comply with

8 See http://www.tasaf.org/index.php/about-us/organization/tasaf-i and http://www.tasaf.org/index.php/about-

us/organization/tasaf-ii for an overview of the evolution for the project since its implementation in 2000
9 See http://www.tasaf.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69 for a breakdown of the finances.

15
the set conditions for payment because of a lack of health care facilities and schools. Moreover, it
is unclear what the role of LGAs is in this process.10
Both of these cases illustrate multiple lines of responsibility at the front line of service delivery.
This makes the process of identifying lines of accountability very opaque.

2.5 Civil society initiatives in measuring governance in Tanzania

The Tanzanian government has signed up to the Open Government Partnership (OGP). The
OGP is a global initiative that aims at promoting transparency, accountability, citizen
empowerment, fighting corruption and encouraging the use of new technologies to improve
governance. The intention is to make government more open to its citizens in the interest of
improving public service delivery and government responsiveness, combating corruption and
building greater trust (Kombani, 2013). For this to be done, a platform in the form of a website
has been implemented that gives citizens the opportunity to give the government direct feedback
about the services that they are or are not providing. It also allows citizens to track and follow up
on any complaints that may have been made.11 The process for how complaints are then addressed
is unclear.
Civil society organisations are seen as critical to effective citizen demands for local government
accountability (Mushi, 2011). In the context of Tanzania such organisations are involved in
monitoring expenditure and advocacy for better governance at both national and local levels
(Rogall, 2007; Pathfinder, 2013). They are often the preferred partner for donors (Green, 2014).
Moreover, they are assumed to play an important role in demanding access to information,
providing services and advocating for rights for citizens in Tanzania (Hearn and Mapunda, 2012).
However, as Green (2014) notes, this agenda has been driven and shaped by donors and is not
necessarily reflective of a sustainable and genuine local civic accountability process. Further, a
study in Kenya suggests publicly available information on education has not stimulated greater
activism (Lieberman et al., 2015).
Some examples of initiatives of this type include the following.
The Accountability in Tanzania (AcT) Programme was a £31 million governance programme
funded largely by DFID and managed by KPMG, originally with consortium partners the Overseas
Development Institute (ODI), MDF and the Delta Partnership. The programme ran for six years
(2009– 15) and included ring-fenced finance (including a contribution from the Danish
International Development Agency for governance and accountability). The purpose of the
programme was to increase the accountability and responsiveness of government to its citizens
through a strengthened civil society. This was a form of demand-driven accountability (Hearn and
Jones, 2011) insofar as, ‘Demand-side governance initiatives refer to citizen or society-led activities
to exact accountability from power-holders’ (Classen and Lardies, 2010: 3).
AcT worked by making grants and supporting learning across 25 civil society partners working in
all sectors and parts of the country (covering 15 districts). These included Policy Forum, a
member-led network of NGOs working on citizen voice, local governance and oversight of public
money. Through partners HakiKazi, Research on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA) and the Tanzania
Gender Networking Programme, Policy Forum has produced a guide to public expenditure

10 A similar project was conducted in 2010: see Evans et al. (2012).

11 See http://www.wananchi.go.tz/ for more information on how to make a complaint.

16
tracking for citizens in English and Kiswahili and also governance reviews of the presidential terms
since 2005.
Oxfam GB was also involved in the AcT programme, under the name Chukua Hatua. As with
the other organisations, it was concerned with demand-driven accountability and aimed to create
an active citizenry through participatory workshops and training. Instead of outcomes it monitored
behavioural changes through outcome mapping (Green, 2015).
It is unclear if the projects that were in the AcT programme have actually made any lasting impact
in the accountability discourse, and also the extent to which the government of Tanzania engaged
with these projects. The final evaluation report suggests impact at the national level was very
limited. Some local impacts were reported but that is to be expected within the life of the
programme and considering the level of the resources given to the local civil society (Itad, 2016).
DFID has recently funded another similar programme, Inclusive Institutions for Development,
which aims to mobiles civil society.
SNV is a partner in the new Institutions for Inclusive Development project and took part in a
similar project from 2009 to 2013 funded by the Netherlands. Adkins (2014) details a project that
sought to address the difficulties of working on citizen accountability within a highly dysfunctional
and complex system of local government. Building the capacity of local councillors to hold the
district executive to account had limited impact because of constraints in the whole system. This
underlines the difficulty of addressing local governance in isolation from the wider context.
Twaweza12 and the Legal Human Rights Centre (LHRC)13 are significant civil society organisations
in relation to accountability. Twaweza publishes survey information and analysis on government
performance, whereas LHRC tracks human rights abuse. Twaweza has successfully focused
national attention on the very poor quality of Tanzania’s education system through its survey work
(Joshi and Gaddis, 2015). Twaweza recently raised concerns about decreasing civic space in
Tanzania, especially since the elections in October 2015 (Kwayu, 2016). However, its own survey
reveals that 60% of citizens approve of President Magufuli’s ban on opposition rallies in favour of
a unified focus on national development. The new authoritarian crackdown on corruption and
waste is highly popular with citizens (Twaweza, 2016). LHRC produces an annual Human Rights
Report for Tanzania, the most recent of which received funding under the AcT programme. This
highlights potential human rights concerns but is not clearly linked to actions for change at local
levels – for example on tackling mob justice.
It is significant that citizen accountability work in Tanzania is dominated by large NGOs with
donor funding. Citizen accountability needs to begin with citizens at the village/street level working
upwards to try to understand how they might engage with those tasked with delivering services.
The theory of change behind citizen accountability requires that there is a right way of doing things,
and that citizens with information can reveal where a violation has occurred. However, as we have
seen in the case of Tanzania, there is a very wide gap between the rules in theory (policy, structure
and strategy) and how things actually work in practice.

3. Conclusion
Our review of relevant literature on Tanzania reveals heavy donor support to good governance
reform with investment in programmes of local government reform. DbyD in theory pushes

12 http://www.twaweza.org/
13 http://www.humanrights.or.tz/

17
responsibility for public service provision, planning and the rule of law to local government.
However, our analysis of health and social funds provision finds that actual implementation and
lines of responsibility are confused and contradictory. Local government has very limited resource-
raising powers and is highly dependent on central government funding. This presents considerable
difficulties in assessing the performance of local government as lines of responsibility are not clear
or even particularly transparent.
Citizen accountability mechanisms are largely dependent on donor funding and do not work very
well in a local governance system that has a large gap between the rules in theory and how things
actually work in practice.
The question for our research project is then: is it possible to design a local governance
performance index? Is there a danger that such a tool will also fall into the trap of assuming that
the gap between rules in theory and how things work in practice is small and can be closed?
Designing an index will depend on being able to identify indicators that can represent different
lines of accountability within the systems. It is also essential to understand more about where
different actors within the system place blame for failure or lack of progress. For example, local
government cannot be blamed for not delivering services if it does not receive resources from
central government.

18
References
Adkins, J. (2014) ‘Public accountability in Tanzania initiative’. Amsterdam: SNV.
Aiko, R., Akinocho, H. and Lekorwe, M. (2016) ‘Job performance of MPs, local councillors: Are
representatives serving voters or themselves?’ Afrobarometer Dispatch 115, 15 September.
Bloom, E., Sunseri, A. and Leonard, A. (2007) ‘Measuring and strengthening local governance
capacity: The local governance barometer’. Washington, DC: PACT/USAID.
Boesten, J., Mdee, A., & Cleaver, F. (2011). Service delivery on the cheap? Community-based
workers in development interventions. Development in Practice, 21(1), 41
Burns, M. and Mantel M. (2006) ‘Tanzania review of exemptions and waivers’. Report submitted
to the Ministry of Health by the Euro Health Group.
Chaligha, A. et al. (2007) Local governance in Tanzania: Observations from six councils, 2002–2003. Special
Paper 07.22. Dar es Salaam: REPOA.
Chaligha, A. (2014) ‘Transparency and accountability in local governance in Tanzania’. Brief 45.
Dar es Salaam: REPOA.
Chimhutu, V. et al. (2015) ‘Introducing payment for performance in the health sector of Tanzania-
the policy process’, Globalization and Health 11(38): 1–10.
Claasen, M. & Lardies, C. (Eds.) (2010) Social accountability in Africa: practitioner experiences
and lessons, Cape Town: IDASA/ANSA
http://www.saiia.org.za/images/stories/research/aprm/aprm_ansaafrica_social_accounta
bility_africa_20100729.pdf
Cleaver, F. and Toner, A. (2006) ‘The evolution of community water governance in Uchira,
Tanzania: The implications for equality of access, sustainability and effectiveness’, Natural
Resources Forum 30(3): 207–18.
Daima Associates (2009) ‘Evaluation of progress in the implementation of Tanzania Development
Vision 2025’. Dar es Salaam: Daima Associates.
Evans, K. et al. (2012) Community-based conditional cash transfers in Tanzania: Results from a randomized
trial. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Goddard, A. and Mzenzi, I. (2015) ‘Accounting practices in Tanzanian local government
authorities: Towards a grounded theory of manipulating legitimacy’, in K. Jayasinghe, N.D.
Nath and R. Othman (ed.) Public sector accounting, accountability and auditing in emerging economies.
Research in Accounting in Emerging Economies, Volume 15. Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing, pp.109–42.
Gray, H. and Khan, M. (2010) ‘Good governance and growth in Africa: What can we learn from
Tanzania? In P. Vishnu (ed.) The political economy of Africa. London. Routledge, pp. 339–56.
Green, M. (2014) The developmental state: Aid, culture and civil society in Tanzania. Oxford: James Currey.
Green, D. (2015) The CHUKUA HATUA Accountability Programme, Tanzania. Oxford: Oxfam.
Hearn, S. and Jones, H. (2011) ‘Supporting demand-side accountability in Tanzania: Is AcT helping
CSO Partners to become more effective in achieving change?’,
http://accountability.or.tz/ckfinder/userfiles/files/042011-RAPID-OM-report-_2_.pdf
Hearn, S. and Mapunda, K. (2012) ‘Strengthening civil society in Tanzania. Is outcome mapping
helping the AcT programme and its partners influence change?’,
www.accountability.or.tz/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/OM-2012-for-website.pdf
Hoffman, B.D. (2006) Political accountability at the local level in Tanzania,
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1zg1g7nj

19
Idd, A. et al. (2013) ‘Implementation of pro-poor exemption policy in Tanzania: policy versus
reality’, The International Journal of Health Planning and Management 28: 298–309.
IIAG (Ibrahim Index of African Governance) (2015) ‘Country insights: Tanzania’, at:
http://static.moibrahimfoundation.org/u/2015/10/02201457/49_Tanzania.pdf
Itad (2015) ‘Final evaluation of DFID AcT programme in Tanzania’. London: Itad.
Janus, H. and Keijzer, N. (2015) Big results now? Emerging lessons from results-based aid in Tanzania.
Bonn: German Development Institute.
Joshi, A.R. and Gaddis, I. (2015) Preparing the next generation in Tanzania. Challenges and Opportunities
in Education. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Kessy, F., Mashindano, O. and Shepherd, A. (2013) Translating growth into poverty reduction. Beyond the
numbers. Oxford: African Books Collective.
Kruk, M.E. et al. (2010) ‘Community and health system factors associated with facility delivery in
rural Tanzania: A multilevel analysis;, Health Policy 97: 209–16.
Lieberman, E.S., Posner, D.N. and Tsai, L.L. (2014) ‘Does information lead to more active
citizenship? Evidence from an education intervention in rural Kenya’, World Development 60:
69–83.
Kombani, C. (2013) Open Government Partnership in Tanzania: a paper presented in Rabat,
Morocco; Available at :
http://www.opengov.go.tz/files/publications/attachments/6KOMBANI_Tanzania_en_s
w.pdf
Kwayu, A. (2016) ‘Civic space in Tanzania: A review of local and international reports 2010-2015’.
Dar es Salaam: Twaweza.
Maluka, S.O. and Bbukagile, G. (2014) ‘Implementation of Community Health Fund in Tanzania:
Why do some districts perform better than others?’ The International Journal of Health Planning
and Management 29: 363–82.
Mdee, A. (2008) ‘Towards a dynamic structure-agency framework: understanding individual
participation in collective development activities in Uchira, Tanzania’, International
Development and Planning Review 30(4): 399–421.
Mdee, A., Otieno, P. and Thorley, L. (2012) ‘Now I know my rights!’ Exploring group membership and
rights-based approaches for people living with HIV/AIDS in Northern Tanzania. Working Paper 4.
Bradford: JEFCAS.
Mtei, G. and Mulligan, J.A. (2007) Community health funds in Tanzania: A literature review. Dar es
Salaam: Ifakara Health Institute.
Mkoka, D.A. et al. (2015) ‘“Once the government employs you, it forgets you”: Health workers’
and managers’ perspectives on factors influencing working conditions for provision of
maternal health care services in a rural district of Tanzania’, Human Resources for Health 13
(77): 1–13.
Muro, J.E. and Namusonge, G.S. (2015) ‘Governance factors affecting community participation
in public development projects in Meru district in Arusha in Tanzania’, International Journal of
Scientific and Technology Research 4(6): 106–10.
Mushi, A. (2011) ‘Civil society in the era of good governance dispensation: Non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and the politics of engaging government in Tanzania’. PhD thesis,
University of Birmingham.

20
Njunwa, M. H. (2011). Achieving the Millennium Development Goals through innovative public
service delivery: A critical assessment of implementing client service charters in Tanzania.
JOAAG, 6(1), 58-67.
OPHI (Oxford Policy Management Institute) (2015) ‘Tanzania country briefing’. Global
Multidimensional Poverty Index at a Glance. Oxford: OPHI.
ORGUT (2009) African local council oversight and social accountability project (ALCOSA). Stockholm:
ORGUT.
Pathfinder (2013) ‘Use of citizen report card to assess local family planning needs in Tanzania’,
http://www.pathfinder.org/publications-tools/pdfs/Use-of-the-Citizen-Report-Card-to-
Assess-Local-Family-Planning-Need-in-Tanzania_Sept-2013_FINAL.pdf
REPOA (Research on Poverty Alleviation) (2014) ‘Let the people have a say. Survey in Tanzania,
2014. Summary of results’. Afrobarometer Round 6,
http://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/publications/Summary%20of%20results/tan
_r6_sor_en.pdf
Ringo, C.J. and Lekorwe, M.H. (2013) ‘Citizen-leader contact apathy in Botswana and Tanzania:
Examining its implications for good governance practice’, International Journal of Businesses and
Social Science 4(3): 197–207.
Rogall, T. (2007) ‘Usefulness of public expenditure tracking surveys and other survey methods for
legal sector monitoring in Tanzania’, available at:
http://hakielimu.org/files/publications/document121usefulness_of_public.pdf
Tanganyika Law Society (2014) Legislative hindrances to transparency and open governance in Tanzania. A
study on access and right to information in mainland Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: Tanganyika Law
Society.
Taylor, M. (2012) ‘Strengthening the voice of the poor: religious organisations’ engagement in
policy consultation processes in Nigeria and Tanzania’, Development in Practice 22(5): 792–802.
Tidemand, P. et al. (2008) Local level service delivery, decentralisation and governance. Tokyo. JICA.
Tidemand, P. et al. (2015) Local government authority (LGA) fiscal inequities and the challenges of
‘disadvantaged’ LGAs in Tanzania. London: ODI.
Tripp, A.M. (2012) Donor assistance and political reform in Tanzania. Working Paper 2012/037.
Helsinki: UNU-WIDER.
Twaweza (2016) ‘Democracy, dictatorships and demonstrations’. Sauti za Wanachi Brief 36. Dar
es Salaam: Twaweza.
URT (United Republic of Tanzania) (1999) ‘National Framework for Good Governance’. Dar es
Salaam: URT.
URT (United Republic of Tanzania) (2001) ‘The Community Health Fund Act.’ Dar es Salaam:
URT.
URT (United Republic of Tanzania) (2005) ‘National Strategy of Growth and Poverty Reduction’.
Dar es Salaam: URT.
UNDP (UN Development Programme) (2014) Tanzania Human Development Report 2014. Economic
transformation for human development. Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: ESRF.
Venugopal, V. and Yyilmaz, S. (2010) ‘Decentralization in Tanzania: An assessment of local
government discretion and accountability’, Public Administration and Development 30: 215–31.
Wild, L., Booth, D., Cummings, C., Foresti, M. and Wales, J. (2015) ‘Adapting development:
Improving services for the poor’. London: ODI.
World Bank (2012) Service Delivery Indicators, Tanzania. Washington DC

21