Introduction Efforts to empower citizens need to be accompanied by state mechanisms to ensure accountability and responsiveness. Accountability mechanisms can include formal top-down processes (such as elections, hearings, consultations) or bottom-up strategies (such as participatory budgeting, social mobilisation, and citizen monitoring). Accountability also requires mechanisms through which citizens can hold government to account. These include direct mechanisms, such as citizens' scorecards on service delivery; institutions such as civil society organisations and political parties representing citizens' views in engagement with decision-makers; and more formal accountability mechanisms like elections, parliaments and ombudsmen at local and national levels. It is increasingly recognised that greater accountability and responsiveness can only be brought about by working across these levels. Fox (2005) (cited below) argues: "Pro-poor reforms require changes in three distinct arenas: within the state itself, within society and at the state-society interface." The chapter below argues that for social accountability mechanisms to be effective in enabling citizens to hold powerholders to account, some level of state support is required. Experience shows that such support can range from intensely active to extremely reluctant. However, governments can view civil society involvement in advocacy less positively than service delivery. Advocacy activities can often be subjected to government controls and legal barriers, which is frequently the case in fragile states with weak governance and accountability. One of the reasons for accountability failures is the capture of public institutions by powerful and resourceful groups, and the lack of representation of poor people. The ability to demand accountability and the