Renewing the Social Contract: Building Municipal Trust in Kosovo
By: Nicholas Battaile, Program Management Associate
Trust between people and their government is one of the essential underpinnings of functioning democracies. Research and evidence from around the world underscore that low public trust undermines citizens' willingness to engage in civic participation, which in turn reduces the accountability of government institutions. The result is a feedback loop that continually weakens trust. Although efforts to encourage transparency sound like a straightforward solution to address dwindling public trust, they have a mixed record of success. As Democracy International’s Kassidy Irvan wrote in her three-part blog covering trust at the municipal level, building lasting trust between officials and their constituents requires more than simply working to increase local governments’ transparency. People hold established, multifaceted views of their governments; many things influence public trust beyond the degree to which government shares information about its operations. Social and behavioral science research suggests that people's trust in government depends on the extent to which they perceive public servants as benevolent, competent, and honest. While the root of public distrust in municipal government may vary from case to case, interventions seeking to improve public confidence should always consider these three essential components of trust.
One approach aligned with this insight, called “intergroup contact intervention,” involves facilitating interaction between members of different groups to help diminish prejudices and encourage collaboration. In doing so, groups may see each other as more willing to cooperate and capable of arriving at a common ground. In other words, intergroup contact intervention often improves the group members’ perceptions of others’ benevolence and competence. This approach becomes more complicated, however, in situations where there is an imbalance of power between conflicting groups. Without addressing such a power disparity, intergroup contact can be completely counterproductive. When facilitating intergroup contact, it is imperative to level the playing field for all participants by establishing a fair process and preventing any one side from dominating the interaction. The U.S. Agency for International Development’s Social Contract Activity in Kosovo, which DI implements, offers a programmatic illustration of how practitioners can apply an intergroup contact intervention to build trust between citizens and their municipal governments.
The Social Contract Activity has been ongoing in five pilot municipalities since the beginning of 2022 and is scaling up to include an additional 10 municipalities.[1] The core objective of the Social Contract Activity is to improve the relationship between Kosovo citizens and their municipal governments, particularly by establishing sustainable public participation practices supported by officials and citizen groups. The issue of trust runs both ways in this environment. While citizens distrust existing public participation mechanisms and doubt local governments’ interest in genuine engagement, a significant number of municipal officials perceive citizens as lacking the competence or motivation to take advantage of civic engagement opportunities.
To better understand the perspectives of both citizens and municipal officials, the Social Contract Activity team conducted assessments exploring both sides’ beliefs about the underlying causes of municipal service delivery challenges. These assessments aimed to draw out the perceived barriers and enablers to public participation among citizens and officials. They also sought to delineate the roles that key stakeholders play in each community’s public participation process. Through two rounds of workshops, the first with municipal officials (referred to as Behavioral Harvest Workshops) and the next with citizens (referred to as Interactive Workshops), the team learned about factors distinct to each municipality that deterred or aided cooperation between officials and citizens.[2] Following the assessments, the Social Contract Activity team facilitated a subsequent round of workshops in each municipality, bringing municipal officials and citizens together to identify entry points for introducing effective, feasible public participation practices. The workshop participants selected at least two issues that they agreed could be addressed through active public participation. Then, the team worked with participants to formulate action-oriented plans (Social Contract Agendas) to resolve each issue and sustain emerging valuable public participation practices beyond the life of the program.
By introducing intergroup contact interventions in the form of the Social Contract Agenda workshops, positive interactions emerged between municipal officials and citizens, offering an opportunity to reshape participants’ perceptions of each other as reliable local partners, even in the face of initial mutual distrust. Through collaborative activities, citizens and officials could reevaluate whether the other group was benevolent enough to genuinely engage on community issues and competent enough to cooperatively resolve those issues. To avoid the interference of the obvious power imbalance between government officials and private citizens, workshop participants selected Social Contract Agenda issues by voting.
Each citizen had an equal say in deciding where they wanted to effect change in their community, reinforcing the perceived honesty of the process and those involved. Speaking after the completion of the Agenda workshops in the Municipality of Gjilan, one of the citizens said, “The objectives of this agenda help to openly support cooperation between municipal officials and citizens to solve their current problems, to help municipal officials and citizens to better understand their duties, and to build trust between the citizens and the municipal administration, which seems like a very small step but carries a lot of weight.”
A year after finalizing the Social Contract Agendas in the Activity’s pilot municipalities, officials and citizens are making steady progress in addressing their chosen community issues and have instituted public participation methods beyond the Agendas and the Social Contract Activity. For example, the Social Contract Activity helped the pilot municipalities introduce the practice of participatory budgeting, a process by which citizens vote on subjects that they want officials to spend a percentage of the municipal budget on. The municipalities have since replicated the process by their own initiative. The mayor of Prizren described the process as
enhancing opportunities for citizen inclusion in the budget planning process, which has led to an increase in confidence in the institutions of the Municipality of Prizren. As a result, citizens have more information on the municipal budget planning processes and an increased awareness of the way their direct participation contributes to joint decision-making.
This is an encouraging demonstration of the potential for countering the harmful feedback loop of public distrust by providing a setting for positive interaction.
[1] The pilot municipalities of the Social Contract Activity are Gjilan, Obiliq, Pristina, Prizren, and Suhareka.
[2] The Social Contract Activity team intends for the Behavioral Harvest Workshops to 1) leave municipal officials with an understanding of social and behavioral science and its potential in helping them complete their objectives, 2) identify an objective to focus on and behavior(s) that must change to achieve it, and 3) identify influences on the target behavior(s).;
Through the Interactive Workshops the Social Contract Activity team aims to 1) assess the state of public participation in the municipality from the direct experience of citizens; 2) identify enablers and barriers to citizen public participation; and 3) identify the ideal chain of communication between citizens and officials within existing municipal mechanisms.