The literature on connectivity is more limited. A number of reports from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) examine how migration is affecting rural communities (IOM 2013, IOM 2014), while the recent World Bank study ‘A Country on the Move’ (World Bank 2015) examines migration patterns in detail. There has been limited academic work to date on the expansion of ICT in Myanmar and its social effects, though a number of journalistic accounts provide some useful context (Mod 2016). We attempt to bring together several strands of applied research (including the effects of migration, improved physical infrastructure, and mobile technology) to show the effects of enhanced and deepened connectivity on community interactions with the state.

A number of studies have examined how communities in Myanmar view and rely on (or actively avoid) state institutions. These include Mike Griffiths’ work on community resilience (Griffiths 2016), Gerard McCarthy’s research with IGC on non-state social protection (McCarthy 2016), and Helene Kyed’s ongoing study into everyday access to justice (Kyed, forthcoming). Similarly, previous Myanmar Update papers have also proven useful in elucidating how land (Wells 2014), access to rural credit (Turnell 2010), and other key issues are shaping state-society interactions. Much of this work demonstrates the enduring importance of non-state institutions even as formal government services have expanded in recent years. This paper builds on this work, giving particular attention to how this expansion of state-provided services is being received and perceived by people in rural communities, where historically the state has been regarded with deep suspicion or indifference.

Building on these foundations, we now consider how data from six rounds of QSEM research enable us to draw initial conclusions about the nature and extent of social change in rural Myanmar since 2012.

# 3. Village Governance

The role of village government institutions in Myanmar Village governance institutions in Myanmar play two key functions: they maintain social order within and between villages, and act as interlocutors between community members and external actors. These core functions have changed little since Myanmar’s reforms began (Kempel 2013). The QSEM research demonstrates, however, that _how_ those functions are carried out and _what factors influence_ village institutional actors, have changed significantly since 2012. For example, national reforms have led village tract administrators to grow in stature and influence at the expense of village administrators.<sup>4</sup> Although the current policy framework for local institutions has flaws, we argue that, overall, national reforms have led village institutions to be more responsive to people’s needs.

Early stage research in 2012 found that in the vast majority of villages, villagers perceived village administrators to be the most important actor for managing village affairs, mediating disputes, and representing the village beyond its borders. Village administrators were elected in approximately a quarter of villages. In such villages, for example most QSEM villages in Chin State, villagers reported greater social trust compared to villages where village administrators 4