Access in democratic societies may be understood as the match between the societal commitment and institutional capacity to deliver rights or services, and the citizen’s capacity to enjoy those rights or services. Unfortunately, around the world, we often notice a mismatch between the two. A mismatch, so to speak, between principles and practice in democratic governance. The starting point for our research is this practice of democratic governance. Who benefits from rights and services, and who doesn’t? To what extent are the inequalities the result of institutional and organizational flaws? How can they be fixed?

Access to the economy
Starting a small business is for some people a dream come true,  yet for others sheer necessity. Those who have no realistic chances of regular employment often become entrepreneurs by  necessity. Creating and maintaining a favorable climate for entrepreneurship and making markets accessible for new businesses is an important function of democratic governance. Microfinance institutions, fair legal frameworks to level playing fields, and easy business licensing practices are among the innovations that have improved access to the economy. (See the HoReCa1 case from Amsterdam on the Materials webpage)

Access to justice
Few people oppose the adage “Equal Justice Under Law.” At the same time it is quite clear that institutions of justice are not equally accessible. Lawyers are expensive and legal aid is scarce. Procedures are complicated and require knowledge of and experience with the law. Many people are not aware of their rights or of ways to have them enforced. Innovations in this area include public interest litigation, legal aid or empowerment, and alternative forms of dispute resolution. (See the Nyayagrah case from India on the Materials webpage)

Access through technology
The advent of new technology has revolutionized the way citizens communicate with their governments. Online portals and web transactions in many cases have diminished paperwork and excessive bureaucracy. After the initial euphoria, however, came the question, “Has the internet truly made public services more accessible for the public?” Warnings about a 'digital divide' have made governments sensitive to the idea that technology is not an end in itself, but a multi-faceted tool that is only as strong as its user. The case of the Mobile Citizen Assistance Service Centers in Brazil (available on the Materials webpage) shows how creative use of new technologies increased access to government services, especially for the rural poor.

Innovations
The cases mentioned above, as well as many other cases analyzed in the Improving Access project, show that improving access is often not a matter of creating new institutions, policies, or programs. It is a about making them work more equitably. Critical to achieving that goal is to shift the primary focus of public management from institutions to outcomes and from a government-centric approach to a citizen-centric approach. Acknowledging inequalities in outcome, caused by seemingly 'neutral' institutions, is the first step towards addressing the mechanisms that lead to exclusion. Once the mechanisms become clear, the remedies are often just as simple as they are effective.

With the Improving Access project, we hope —through fundamental and applied research, conferences, and teaching— to create a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of exclusion as well as strategies for improving access for citizens. The Global Innovators Network conference on Access, co-organized by the Ash Institute in The Hague last November (2007), brought together innovators from all over the world to discuss an agenda for research and action. With a scholarly book (The State of Access, forthcoming), a practitioner’s book (Breaking the Glass Wall. A practitioner’s Agenda for Improving Access, forthcoming), teaching cases, and a training program, we hope to take this agenda forward.

More information: Jorrit de Jong, Research Fellow, Ash Institute, jorrit_dejong@harvard.edu