Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

There is a need for a more accurate description and comparison of the scope and variety of services performed by legislators. The consequence of such variations in constituency service according to findings most times negatively impacts trust-building and constituency accountability mechanisms.

Paper long abstract:

There is a need for a more accurate description and comparison of the scope and variety of services performed by legislators. Where there are great variations among legislators in these activities, we need to know why as well as the consequences of such variation on legislator-constituency relations. We need to know at a micro level how much legislators' efforts influence the distribution of services to constituents and how they could be hampered by what the study conceptualised as black holes of constituency service. Based on an ethnographic account as an intern during Yiaga Africa’s constituency office programme in Ife Federal Constituency in Nigeria, and a series of semi-structured interviews with two legislators, four legislative aid, and 40 constituents drawn from eight communities in Ife Central and Ife East Constituencies of the Osun State House of Assembly, the study identified how the scope and varying non-institutional incentives such as legislator’s priorities on social events, burial ceremonies, sports events, etc., differentiate and describes efforts and impact on constituency service. The reason for such variations was the legislator’s weak prioritisation of core imperatives surrounding casework, outreaches, information provision and parliamentary initiatives. The consequence of these varying non-institutional incentives according to findings are mostly encouraged by non-evaluative and unsustainable approaches. This negatively impacts trust-building and constituency accountability mechanisms which are further aggravated by middlemen (legislative aids and party loyalists) who form black holes (blurred practices) of constituency service. The study unpacks the importance of a legislator’s prioritisation of service, allocation, policy and symbolic responsiveness.