IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/gsspwp/178892.html

How local leaders view transparency and local autonomy in humanitarian aid distribution: Evidence from Mali

Author

Listed:
  • Bleck, Jaimie
  • Carrillo, Lucia
  • Gottlieb, Jessica
  • Guindo, Sidiki
  • Kosec, Katrina
  • Kyle, Jordan
  • Soumano, Moumouni

Abstract

Recognizing the pivotal role local governance plays in crisis response and the diversity of local conditions even within a single country context, this article examines variation in preferences over humanitarian aid delivery among local leaders in Mali. Drawing on qualitative fieldwork and a survey of 2,919 local leaders across the country, we investigate leaders’ preferences over two key dimensions of aid governance: local autonomy over targeting and distribution and transparency over aid delivery. Using aid profile vignettes to elicit preferences over these attributes, we find that leaders generally favor approaches that combine both greater local control and greater transparency, viewing transparency as complementary to autonomy rather than constraining. Preferences, however, vary by leaders’ position and by context: outsiders to aid governance demand more transparency, and leaders’ relative trust in local aid committees versus donors predicts preferences for autonomy. Leaders in conflict-affected villages place greater value on autonomy and less on transparency, highlighting how insecurity reshapes aid preferences in fragile settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Bleck, Jaimie & Carrillo, Lucia & Gottlieb, Jessica & Guindo, Sidiki & Kosec, Katrina & Kyle, Jordan & Soumano, Moumouni, 2025. "How local leaders view transparency and local autonomy in humanitarian aid distribution: Evidence from Mali," GSSP working papers 2384, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    • Handle: RePEc:fpr:gsspwp:178892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/178892
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grimmer, Justin & Messing, Solomon & Westwood, Sean J., 2012. "How Words and Money Cultivate a Personal Vote: The Effect of Legislator Credit Claiming on Constituent Credit Allocation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 703-719, November.
    2. Abhijit Banerjee & Rema Hanna & Jordan Kyle & Benjamin A. Olken & Sudarno Sumarto, 2018. "Tangible Information and Citizen Empowerment: Identification Cards and Food Subsidy Programs in Indonesia," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(2), pages 451-491.
    3. Honig, Dan, 2019. "When Reporting Undermines Performance: The Costs of Politically Constrained Organizational Autonomy in Foreign Aid Implementation," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(1), pages 171-201, January.
    4. Bleck, Jaimie & Gottlieb, Jessica & Kosec, Katrina & Boss, Lindsey, 2021. "Women’s voices in civil society organizations: Evidence from a civil society mapping project in Mali," Issue briefs April 2021, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. John Ferejohn, 1986. "Incumbent performance and electoral control," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 5-25, January.
    6. Peter Shapland & Conny J. M. Almekinders & Annemarie Paassen & Cees Leeuwis, 2023. "An Ethnography of Endogenous Institutional Change in Community-Driven Development," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(6), pages 1465-1483, December.
    7. Fox, Jonathan A., 2007. "Accountability Politics: Power and Voice in Rural Mexico," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199208852.
    8. Mirko Heinzel & Bernhard Reinsberg & Giuseppe Zaccaria, 2025. "Core funding and the performance of international organizations: Evidence from UNDP projects," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 957-976, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bleck, Jaimie & Carrillo, Lucia & Gottlieb, Jessica & Guindo, Sidiki & Kosec, Katrina & Kyle, Jordan & Soumano, Moumouni, 2025. "How local leaders view transparency and local autonomy in humanitarian aid distribution: Evidence from Mali," IFPRI discussion papers 2384, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Jeffrey Clemens & Julia Payson & Stan Veuger, 2026. "Aid for incumbents: the electoral consequences of COVID-19 relief," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 206(3), pages 363-390, March.
    3. Arkedis, Jean & Creighton, Jessica & Dixit, Akshay & Fung, Archon & Kosack, Stephen & Levy, Dan & Tolmie, Courtney, 2021. "Can transparency and accountability programs improve health? Experimental evidence from Indonesia and Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    4. Arkedis, Jean & Creighton, Jessica & Dixit, Akshay & Fung, Archon & Kosack, Stephen & Levy, Dan & Tolmie, Courtney, 2019. "Can Transparency and Accountability Programs Improve Health? Experimental Evidence from Indonesia and Tanzania," Working Paper Series rwp19-020, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    5. Kikuta,Kyosuke & Ono, Yoshikuni, 2024. "Global Evidence for the Relevance of Irrelevant Events: International Soccer Games and Leader Approval," IDE Discussion Papers 942, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO).
    6. Berliner, Daniel & Bagozzi, Benjamin E. & Palmer-Rubin, Brian, 2018. "What information do citizens want? Evidence from one million information requests in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 222-235.
    7. Dan Levy, 2019. "Can Transparency and Accountability Programs Improve Health? Experimental Evidence from Indonesia and Tanzania," CID Working Papers 352, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    8. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    9. Scott Gehlbach & Konstantin Sonin & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2010. "Businessman Candidates," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 718-736, July.
    10. Kirill Chmel & Aigul Klimova & Nikita Savin, 2023. "Saving lives or saving the economy? Support for the incumbent during the COVID-19 pandemic in Russia," Post-Soviet Affairs, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 291-307, July.
    11. Silvia Dominguez-Martinez & Otto Swank, 2006. "Polarization, Information Collection and Electoral Control," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(3), pages 527-545, June.
    12. Antonio Bubbico, 2013. "Administrative Continuity: Enhancer or Constraint for Regional Governments' Efficiency?," ERSA conference papers ersa13p493, European Regional Science Association.
    13. Lamberova, Natalia, 2021. "The puzzling politics of R&D: Signaling competence through risky projects," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 801-818.
    14. Hibbs, Douglas A, Jr, 2000. "Bread and Peace Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 104(1-2), pages 149-180, July.
    15. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    16. Aggeborn, Linuz & Persson, Lovisa, 2017. "Public Finance and Right-Wing Populism," Working Paper Series 1182, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    17. Laurent Bouton & Paola Conconi & Francisco Pino & Maurizio Zanardi, 2018. "Guns, Environment, and Abortion: How Single-Minded Voters Shape Politicians' Decisions," Working Papers gueconwpa~18-18-15, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
    18. Ralf Dewenter & Uwe Dulleck & Tobias Thomas, 2016. "Does the 4th estate deliver? Towards more direct measure of political media bias," Working Paper 175/2016, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg.
    19. Paschalis Arvanitidis & Athina Economou & Christos Kollias, 2016. "Terrorism’s effects on social capital in European countries," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 231-250, December.
    20. Christian Schultz, 2003. "Information, Polarization and Delegation in Democracy," CESifo Working Paper Series 1104, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fpr:gsspwp:178892. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.