Slow Milk, Fast Miraa

Observing information travel in Nchigi, Kenya

Communication for behavior change is a lot like driving. You shift gears based on the road ahead. If the road is tarmacked and smooth, you might floor it. If the road is potholed and muddy, you might move a lot slower. 

I began wondering how cars and communication relate after I returned from an immersion in Kenya in May 2013, courtesy of Twaweza. While spending 3 days in Nchigi (part of Meru Central District) with a farmer and his extended family, I asked myself many questions. My favorite question went something like this: Why do some kinds of information travel faster or slower than others?

Two trades that involve a lot of information movement and that intrigued me were those of milk and miraa, or the khat plant. I noticed that while milk travels much slower than miraa on a daily basis, each trade has its constituents who value information that comes with the product. And they value this information regardless of how fast the product travels. In fact, constituents value the information to the point that their livelihoods depend on it. If the product stalls, their lives stall. The faster the product moves, the faster their lives move.

Milk and daily updates

The man who hosted me in his family – my host father – has several plots of land. With his wife, brother, son and grandchildren, he raises cattle and grows potatoes and avocados. But everyone also has other enterprising skills: The brother owns a village retail store, the son co-started a print shop in the village square, one of the grandchildren is an aspiring electrical engineer, the wife makes delicious sukuma wiki. And my host father has a milk route.

My host father's milk route comprises of three sets of tools. One cart, two donkeys, and three large milk containers. Every morning, around 7am, he sets off with the cart being pulled by the two donkeys. The cart carries the three milk containers which start off empty. Between 7 and 8.30am, my host father makes three stops in the village, which are about 20-30 minutes of slow walking apart. At each stop, there are a group of people waiting for him, each person with smaller container of milk. Unlike my host father's containers, theirs are full. They fill up his containers while he jots down their contributions and chats with them while he does so.

After the three stops, my host father takes the collected milk to the village dairy cooperative. The cooperative then makes finished products like packet milk, cheese, yogurt and even ice cream if you commission them to do so. The proceeds come back to my host father and the other milk farmers in the village.

This process happens every day. What was intriguing for me in addition to the cooperative itself is the chatter that happened when my host father made his stops. Everybody there asks questions and reports on what’s happened in the last 24 hours: Whose cows are doing well, what the village chief is planning for the next month, who had a baby, where the children went and who this new guy from Dar-es-Salaam is. Topics were not necessarily restricted to the dairy trade. While this information might seem trivial to urban dwellers, this is the kind of conversation that reminded me of news updates and Twitter feeds. Without this milk route, my host father and those he collected milk from would not be able to exchange that information any other way.

Trends in the Kenyan milk trade indicate that such milk routes are indeed important to people’s livelihoods. A report by the Tegmeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development observed the number of milking cattle to be up to 5.5 million; around 1 cow for every 7 Kenyans. For the sake of comparison, there is 1 cow for every 5 people in Uganda; 1 cow for every 3 people in Tanzania. The Kenyan dairy industry contributes about 3% to the national GDP, indicating strong reliance on dairy farmers. Since the area I was hosted at in Nchigi was mostly farmland, milk is likely to have sustained a proportionally larger population there, compared to the national scale. 

Furthermore, a Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development report notes that the dairy industry provides a significant employment base for Kenyans. This refers to both production and services in the dairy industry. It was evident that my host father’s milk route provided partial employment to many others; the day I walked with him on his route, there were at least 10 individuals who contributed to the cooperative.

Given the Kenyan dairy industry’s contribution to national income and the employment opportunities it offers, there are gaps in efficacy. The same Ministry report calls for a “supportive policy environment” (p 69) and “full representation of all stakeholders” (p 72), which broadly translates to listening to dairy farmers. For example, I came across one milk vendor who claims that farmers have inadequate access to animal feed in times of drought, which reduces milk production.

It could very well be that milk could move a lot faster if more farmers were included in dairy farming policies. But from my observations, those who do milk cattle know each other and exchange a lot of information at least once a day. Taking the situation as it is, information that travels with milk is likely to also be served at least once a day.

Miraa and hourly updates

And then there are products that move much faster. On our way into and out of Nchigi, we were on the road for several hours. I couldn't help but notice many khaki-colored single-cabin pick up trucks that had the biggest mounds of produce on the back I had ever seen. These mounds fetched at least twice the height of the cars themselves. And these cars were zooming past us with their headlights on (even in broad daylight). It didn't take long for me to learn from the conversations around me that these were trucks transporting miraa, or mirungi, nicknames for the khat plant.

Miraa is a legal trade in Kenya, one that involves frequent deadlines and high speeds. You either chew miraa or know someone that does. No authorities will stop cars moving miraa. It has become such a big trade in Kenya that cartels are known to be shipping to other territories. My rough estimates put the miraa trade at 0.5% of the Kenyan GDP, employing up to 9 million people[1][1]. And this is one of the reasons why these trucks were speeding on the roads – to try to get to the airport on time. The other reason is that they are supplying local retailers. Apparently, around 2pm every day, the miraa street vendors are given their allocations and they spread out in Nairobi and other cities. If the shipments from the plantations are not in by that time, the transporters and their suppliers don't get paid and have to wait until the next shipment.

It's a competitive business. Each transporter's team is for itself. So they can't actually afford to stop, otherwise they lose cash. For them, key information is about selling points, departure times, going prices and laws. Without this information, their work becomes meaningless and risky. With it, everyone involved in the trade has a specific role and a place to be at all times.

Apart from its supply chain, miraa encourages group chewing, or what one lecturer called khat parties. During these sessions, groups talk for hours, similar to get-togethers for tea, or beer, or cocktails. This kind of conversation is different from my father’s milk route conversations: While one transpires over a few hours and involves an intoxicant, the other transpires over 3-10 minutes and will not happen for another 24 hours. 

But miraa’s supply chain and social culture are not for everyone. Recently, the British home secretary banned the khat plant. It joins an existing list of countries, including Tanzania, Canada and the United States, that prohibit the plant and classify it as a controlled substance. With reason too: Some consider it a narcotic drug that becomes increasingly addictive when used.

Regardless of how laws will shape up around the miraa trade, it stands in sharp contrast to the milk trade when it comes to how fast information travels.

Valuing information via speeds

Information has always traveled. It is useless if it sits in one place. What is different today compared to the past is frequency and reach: We are able to exchange more information today, and across more boundaries than any other time in history. As a result, people's livelihoods increasingly depend on access to this traveling information.

But returning to my question – why does some information travel faster or slower than others? – I find that the answer depends on what information is moving. In the case of my host father and his milk routes, the conversations held at milk spots were filling gaps of information created over 24 hours, like a newspaper. In the case of miraa traders, conversations concern fast moving deals from hour to hour, like a stock ticker. And both scenes have their own audiences.

It might be that some people on my host father’s milk route actually chewed miraa and were on the miraa traders' schedule as well. Likewise, it might be that some of the miraa traders I spotted on the road were in fact part of families who harvested milk. In this case, these particular people are part of both information movements. But it is likely that most audiences are oriented in different ways.

What does this mean for communication for behavior change? It could means two things. First, behavior comes from people, and people are part of different crowds. Depending on which crowd one wants to send information to or receive feedback from, there could be many ways in which to tap into their behavior just from an information source perspective. Second, while the notion “behavior change” comes from fundamental gaps in observable behavior itself, it is worth considering that everyone has something they need to do. My host father needed to be on the milk route because that was his responsibility to his village. The miraa traders need to be moving in fast cars because that is where their bread and butter comes from. Why this is, is another story. But it is. And that is where any communication for behavior change must start, not by telling it like it should be or might be, but by telling it like it is. 

---

---

[1][1] The BBC estimates that up to 30 tonnes of miraa is cultivated every day. I also heard from Kenyan friends that a kilo of miraa on the street goes for about $17. That comes to $510,000 per day in gross income, or just over $186 million per year (0.5% of Kenya’s GDP in 2011, $33.6 billion). BBC also estimates that miraa farmers make $20 a day; assuming this per diem as the daily average for all those involved with the miraa trade, that amounts to just over 9 million people.  

By Al-Amin Kheraj, Program Officer, Twaweza
 

How The Draft Constitution Improves Governance

CHADEMA’s Chairman, Freeman Mbowe has been quoted as saying that he is largely satisfied with the draft constitution. I agree with Mbowe and would like to highlight one aspect in which this draft excels: separation of party power from political power.

In order for Tanzania’s democracy to become increasingly resilient, dynamic and self-sustaining, no single party should monopolize political power so that it unfairly distorts political competition. The draft constitution attempts to mitigate exactly this problem.

Among the many clauses and sub-clauses in the constitution that serve this aim, this piece focuses on some of the essentials: the decision to make members of parliament (MPs) ineligible for ministerial positions; limits on MPs’ tenure; separation of civil service and political leadership; conflict of interest clauses; asset disclosure of political leaders; balancing of power between the executive, legislative and judicial arms of government; and lastly, but not least, confirmation of Presidential appointees through parliament.

These measures have substantial implications. Selecting cabinet ministers from a pool of MPs only serves to concentrate power within a small network of individuals. Nepotism and political patronage become more difficult when one must recruit from a wider pool of applicants. Coupled with a tenure limit for MPs of a maximum of 15 years, the resilience of any one party’s power is less likely.

CCM cannot possibly have as many qualified candidates as there will be political posts. At least, certainly not enough qualified candidates who will always toe the party line. Eventually CCM will have to choose from beyond party stalwarts. 

The draft constitution also dilutes party power within government by insisting on the need to avoid conflict of interest. Civil servants, at all levels, are required to disclose any conflicts of interest in their administration of public funds. People in leadership positions within the civil service are also not permitted to seek political leadership in any party.

The draft also stipulates that elected officials declare their assets and those of their married spouses and non-adult children. On the one hand, this does not explicitly and with one magical stroke prevent the possibility of the relevant actors, whose assets fall under this new jurisdiction, from camouflaging their true net worth. On the other, it certainly makes it a bit more costly to do so. But in the end, we may find ourselves with a list of political leaders’ net worth that is a reflection of the honesty of their declarations rather than their actual wealth.

In any case, the requirement is a welcome improvement from the status quo.

Having a greater balance of power across the three arms of government is an important dilution of any single party’s power. Giving parliament more jurisdiction over presidential appointments is a move in the right direction and shores up legislative power, relative to the executive. Looking at examples from other democratic nations, in some instances, the executive could be occupied by one party, while the legislative becomes the preserve of another party. Given that both arms are relatively congruent in their political powers, policies would therefore gravitate towards the moderate voices within any political debate, rather than the extremes ones.

In fact, a viable strategy for any Tanzanian opposition, at present or in the future, could be to win control of at least one arm of government. Parliament seems like the most feasible political prize at present. The draft constitution has given parliament relatively more to chew on and gaining control of this political institution would be tantamount to increased influence on the composition and implementation of policy. 

The creation and establishment of an independent Supreme Court, among other relevant independent political institutions are also some of the welcome aspects of this draft. Of course, an independent judiciary can only be impactful if, and only if, it is utilized by the people themselves. We need this constitution to avoid being just a dead document, viewed apathetically by the people whom it is crafted to serve, so that all of this is not just an academic exercise.

In order for the Supreme Court to be able to flex its muscles, citizens must be active in bringing forth cases that will improve the relevant liberties essential for a peaceful and prosperous society. Human rights, property rights, minority rights – we must all be active defenders and champions of these and the other liberties enshrined in our current and prospective constitution.

As I have read this draft time and time again since its launch, I have an unrestrained optimism.  Yet in order for our democracy to thrive, we must all be Tanzania’s Thurgood Marshalls. Ultimately, if we seek change - positive and transformative change ^_ the onus is on me, on you, and all of us.

By Constantine Manda, Experimental Interventions Coordinator / Research Analyst, Twaweza

Not just bragging rights

If we look beyond the headlines about Obama’s trip costing the American tax payer about $100 million, and the heightened security, what is the benefit to Tanzania of hosting Barack, his family and his entourage? Besides, of course, bragging rights with Kenyans.

The range of responses offered have filled the pages of our newsprint in recent weeks. And one of the most frequently cited potential benefits is increased tourism. Indeed, the visit is a positive signal to would-be American tourists (among others), but the number of tourists visiting Tanzania has been increasing with every passing year. The US President might cause an upsurge, but surely Serengeti, Ngorongoro, Kilimanjaro, Zanzibar, are enticing enough in their own right. Plus, there may be lines of tourists clamouring to get in but what matters is whether we can absorb these increases. The upward trend in tourism is a function of our increased capacity in accommodation and transport, alongside other relevant infrastructure. So no, I do not think the benefit to Obama’s visit lies here.

If not tourism, then perhaps more aid? Well, the US is already doing a lot in Tanzania. Last year alone, the American taxpayer funded projects worth about $750 million. Let us also not forget that President George W. Bush, less than a year before completing his second and final term in office, ceremoniously signed the Millennium Challenge Compact, which continues to help Tanzania address challenges in the energy, transport and water sectors. So, Obama certainly cannot promise to provide that much more than what is already the status quo.

There are two areas, however, that Tanzania should hope to benefit from Obama’s visit. These include greater investment possibilities as well as support for Tanzania’s continued democratization process.

Obama’s entourage is filled with some of the most dynamic and industrious American business leaders. Tanzania’s business community should engage with their US colleagues. The government should explicitly and succinctly explain what avenues of potential investment opportunities exist in Tanzania for the US President’s posse.

On their end, I hope these business leaders are frank in identifying and sharing the constraints they see in investing in Tanzania. It takes twice as long to start a business in Tanzania as it does in rich countries.  I hope the US President implores his Tanzanian counterpart to reduce unnecessary delays that slow down the process of starting a business, dampening entrepreneurial spirit.

By focusing on Tanzania’s capacity to trade and engage with the rest of the world, I hope this visit prompts our government to alleviate problems that limit our economic capacity. The World Bank’s  Jacques Morisset wrote about a month ago that if he had three minutes with President Kikwete, he would ask that JK work to improve the performance of Dar es Salaam’s port. Morisset explains that the “port handles about 90% of Tanzania’s international trade and is the potential gateway of six landlocked countries.” The country could recover as much as $3 billion a year, more than 12% of Tanzania’s economy, through reduced inefficiencies at the port.

This trip is also a great opportunity for Tanzania to capitalize on the battle for hegemony between the US and China by negotiating and renegotiating better deals with both sides. Particularly in extractives, this trip should be a clear message that Tanzania has options, and this should improve our strategic position on any negotiating table. Whether or not the Americans are willing to admit that they are concerned about China’s role in Tanzania, and on the continent, is one thing, but denying that this was factored into calculations around the trip would be dishonest.

The Chinese have always been particularly close to Tanzania. The largest single Chinese development assistance project on the continent to date includes the Tanzania-Zambia railroad. Although the US has also had relatively strong ties to Tanzania, since President John F. Kennedy hosted Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere at the White House, a little over fifty years ago this month, they haven’t quite been as involved as their Pacific rivals. In any case, the fact that Obama’s first full visit to Africa, save a less than 24-hour stop-over in Ghana in 2009, includes Tanzania is a welcome signal of the United States’ continued commitment to Tanzania’s progress. We should not waste such an opportunity.

On democracy, I hope Obama’s visit highlights in the need to strengthen political institutions that will foster greater democracy in our country. These include a more independent and vibrant press; an active and dynamic opposition; among others.

The increased focus on Tanzania during this trip can be a fruitful opportunity for the American President to engage with Tanzania’s political leaders on such matters. I hope Barack emphasizes areas where the US experience can help inform possible solutions for Tanzania. It was welcoming news recently when the Washington Post, which had earlier in June reported on the human trafficking case involving a Tanzanian diplomat and a former domestic employee, wrote that the plaintiff has finally been paid her back-wages jointly by the diplomat and the Tanzanian government. Although the Tanzanian tax payer has had to cough up some of the money to restore faith in our sense of fairness, but the fact that US pressure resulted in the resolution of this case is a harbinger of things to come, should the US exert similar pressure, in a positive democracy-enhancing manner.

Of course, in the end, this whole visit could just fizzle down to politics and photo opportunities for those few that will get a chance to meet the US President. To paraphrase the great Roman philosopher and politician, Marcus Tullius Cicero let's hope that Obama’s visit is judged by its results, and not by its intentions and potential,  So let us take Obama on his own words when he said, on the floor of the Ghanaian parliament four years ago, that “[t]he 21st century will be shaped by what happens not just in Rome or Moscow or Washington, but by what happens in Accra, as well.” Let us hope, or better, let us work towards maximizing Obama’s visit to translate his words into reality.

“Minister, there are 2,000 citizens on the line”

Policymakers in Tanzania, as in many neighboring countries, regularly make decisions for the entire country with little access to the experiences and realities of a large majority of citizens. The world of policies (and politics) and the world of ordinary citizens are miles apart – except during election time when politics and populism are brought suddenly close.

This makes it difficult to know whether policies are properly implemented or actually working. At the same time, citizens do not have an easy way to know what is going on in their country, and to compare their situation with others’.

The disconnection between policy decision-makers and citizens is a complex and entrenched problem. Fixing it in the long-run requires responsive government institutions with effective monitoring and accountability mechanisms, and a data-literate, vocal press – in other words, the creation of institutions very different from the current ones.

This might seem like a pipe dream. Complex problems require complex solutions. But there are nudges and triggers that can open a space for dialogue between citizens and policy makers.

Voices of Citizens

In February 2013, Twaweza, a citizen-centered initiative, launched the first national mobile phone survey for Africa  as part of its mission to create an informed citizenry that is capable of causing large-change in East Africa without waiting for governments, politicians, donors, or citizen sector organizations to do it for them.

Twaweza’s phone survey, called Sauti za Wananchi (Voices of Citizens), creates a mechanism for collecting citizens’ observations and opinions in a representative, quick, and efficient manner, and it provides a platform from which these voices can be broadcast in a timely and effective manner. It focuses on topics that are directly relevant to key service provision in the sectors of education, health, and water. Given the frequent nature of the surveys and the quick turnaround time of analysis, current hot topics can also be addressed.

To set up the mobile phone panel, 2,000 Tanzanians were randomly selected and invited to become Sauti za Wananchi respondents for two years. Mobile phones and chargers were distributed to respondents who agreed to participate in monthly surveys.

So far, Twaweza has conducted five rounds of Sauti calls. Topics have included the educational outcomes of secondary schools, citizens’ access to information, and the availability of essential medicines at primary-level clinics.

Sauti respondents took on the role of citizen monitors for some of these rounds. For example, 196 Sauti respondents visited their local health facilities and reported back for a round that focused on essential medicines. (For more information about the technicalities of the survey, see this link).

Twaweza also provides a broadcasting platform where data that is collected during each of the monthly survey rounds is analyzed and summarized in a “brief” – a summary with data visualizations and accessible language. Each brief has been launched in press conferences that have been covered by the mainstream print and broadcast media in Tanzania. The briefs are also posted online (for example, see a recent article in the Tanzanian newspaper The Citizen).

Each month, we really can tell a government minister that there are 2,000 Tanzanian citizens on the line, answering questions relevant to their daily lives and investigating the service-provision standards in their neighborhoods. It’s a big accomplishment, but the big question, of course, is – so what?

Yes, we are broadcasting the views and feedback from Tanzanian citizens, but are any policymakers listening? How do we ensure that the minister picks up the phone, listens, and uses the data for policy decisions?

Is it our job to generate the data, make it understandable, and widely available to the public – or is it also to actively bring the data to potentially interested parties, and to broker the use of that data? We have not answered that question fully for ourselves – but in seeking the answer, we are developing a system of more closely monitoring what happens to this data.

We are currently exploring the following actions (some of these actions are simpler than others):

1)      Tracking the delivery of the briefs, and monitoring for media coverage.

2)      Analyzing the publicly available recordings of parliamentary discussions to track whether discussions include references to data.

3)      Interviewing a group of selected key audiences (such as ministry officials in relevant sectors, parliamentarians, some donors, and citizen sector organizations) to better understand whether the kind of information we offer is relevant and useful, and whether it has been used in decision-making and how.

Each month, there are 2,000 Tanzanian citizens on the line – answering questions relevant to their daily lives, investigating the service-provision standards in their neighborhoods, voicing their opinions. To close the loop, the Minister has to pick up the phone and use the data.

By Varja Lipovsek, Learning, Monitoring and Evaluation Manager, Twaweza and Rakesh Rajani, Head, Twaweza

Your phone won’t ring just because you gave out your number

 Why Citizens May Not Be Too Keen To Give Feedback

Part of Twaweza’s motivation of joining Feedback Labs comes from Isiolo, a cosmopolitan (if a bit unruly) town in north-central Kenya. In contrast to its frenzied town center, Isiolo’s district hospital is calm and orderly, with wide breezy corridors that connect different departments and spacious patient waiting areas. And at every service point the hospital has large, freshly painted walls which spell out the rights and entitlements due to every patient.

These are not abstract or convoluted – in clear language the signs lay out specific, concrete standards: the types of services on offer, the expected waiting time, the fees for different procedures (and which should be free of charge), the prices of medical supplies. The signs also provide a telephone number to report complaints or concerns. The system appears professional, thoughtful, and organized.

But there is one problem. Over the two hours we spent at the hospital one afternoon in May 2013, we spoke with about twenty patients. None of them appeared to find the signs helpful, even though the official rules of service were often not followed; for example, free drugs are often not available and have to be purchased from a nearby pharmacy. Despite their bright colors and large size (several over 8 x 10 feet), some patients appeared not to have even noticed the signs. Of those that did, none reported ever using their information or calling the telephone numbers listed. When asked why not, people told us it would be a waste of time – no one will even pick up the phone, much less do something about the reported problem.

So we called the number – and within two rings got through to an administrator. She listened with care and patience. She came across as knowledgeable, interested, and ready to take down the details of our concerns so that corrective action could be taken. At the end of the call she thanked us and asked us to call again anytime.

We were stumped. Here was a mechanism that seemed to be well-organized and responsive. And yet people simply did not believe that using the feedback opportunities would be of any use.

The Deeper Problem

The example of the Isiolo hospital is hardly an isolated one. Daraja, an initiative that encouraged citizens to SMS non-functional water points in Njombe, Tanzania, had a very low uptake: out of 829 messages received in the extended pilot phase, only 183 met the criteria to be forwarded to the District Water Engineer, and just 38 came from the piloted area. Clearly, the core idea failed to take hold, and the project was discontinued. Additionally, the gorgeous Huduma citizen site in Kenya has low response rates and 0% success rate in problems resolved, despite an inspiring list of backers.

The interesting thing about these examples is that in fact, in all three cases, mechanisms were set up to address problems, and serious professionals were at the ready to help. But their phones just didn’t ring. Why not?

It wasn’t technological bugs. It worked well and was easy to use. It wasn’t the cost. The mechanisms were low cost or free of charge. It wasn’t lack of publicity. These projects had generally good communication efforts. And it wasn’t irrelevance. Plenty of data shows that people care about basic services in health, water, and education.

Here’s our bet: people don’t respond because they just don’t believe their voices will count. In East Africa where Twaweza works, years of unresponsive and predatory systems have cared little about citizen voice, so much so that even when there is a “real” opportunity for feedback, people simply do not believe it’s worth their while. When for 10, 15, 20 years one’s core experience of public service delivery has been one of disinterest or even fear, simply setting up attractive new mechanisms, however well-intentioned and sophisticated, won’t cut it.
 

Learning Through Experience

As we consider making best use of Feedback Labs, the temptation might be to work really hard to get a brilliant technological design from the outset, and to make evermore earnest presentations about the potential of the platform to get citizen views and have them influence policy and fix problems. But those presentations tend to be to others like ourselves, and tend towards the grander notions of social change.

The answer may lie in the other direction: rather than designing perfect citizen feedback architectures and publicizing them widely to get people to use it, it may be more productive to go for a limited number of well-thought experiments in which we work out pathways of change in relation to very specific, contextualized issues, and develop clear hypotheses about what motivates and triggers people (and systems) to act differently. The key here is that learning must take space in a short time span (in the order of months, not years), and information gained must be used continuously to adapt, improve. We are committed to learning, through an iterative process, which feedback mechanisms and tools are most effective and under what circumstances, what are the role of incentives, how to build the citizen’s confidence to interact with the systems, and, in turn, how to make governments responsive to citizen voices.

Brokering Trust in Feedback

In essence, we are talking about building trust and confidence of citizens in public agencies. But credibility is easy to lose and very hard to regain. We need to simultaneously work with both the demand and supply side of the equation, nudging the service providers and systems into demonstrating responsiveness, as much as encouraging citizens to engage with the mechanisms (after all, few things could be more counter-productive than motivating citizens to speak out when there is no one to listen). In such circumstances the skills to be able to broker trust between mistrustful and unequal parties may be far more essential than the mechanics of the platform.

Fundamentally, we believe citizens have a right to express opinions about public service provision, and governments have a responsibility to listen, respond and act. Figuring out how both public service reforms and citizen groups can cultivate a culture of intelligent listening and continuous learning, with huge doses of improvisation and curiosity, may be worth more than the best laid plans.

By Varja Lipovsek, Learning, Monitoring and Evaluation Manager, Twaweza and Rakesh Rajani, Head, Twaweza