# Increases in government services delivered locally

QSEM research identified a three-fold increase in government-funded services in villages since 2011.<sup>11</sup> In the first three rounds of QSEM research, each village had, on average, slightly more than one type of government-funded service (such as a primary school). This grew over time. The QSEM research documented an increase in government assistance across the panel in particular between the third and fourth rounds of research, in late-2013 to mid-2014 when each village had on average over three types of service. Mirroring the views across many villages, one respondent from Shan State noted “the township administrator asked us to apply for funding. Our village tract received 5 million _kyat_ . We never received anything before this” (QSEM 2014). The rate of increase has since steadied, with villages now receiving an average of close to four different types of services per village in the panel. The initial expansion was driven primarily by government funding for local infrastructure, including through a parliament constituency fund, education activities and access to credit.

The expansion in government services has been accompanied by changes in approaches to service delivery. At the outset, where government activities did make their way to the village level they were invariably centrally planned and provided limited scope for local communities to influence what types of services were delivered or how they were delivered. The vast majority of government services in early rounds centered on education or access to credit, invariably Myanmar Agricultural Development Bank (MADB) loans. MADB loans were uniform, with the only variation being different loan amounts for paddy growing areas and areas where other crops were grown. Education services were also uniform across areas, comprising mainly the provision of government teachers. Some villages also received basic school infrastructure projects, with villagers having limited ability to influence the type of support but invariably having to contribute additional financial or in-kind assistance. In one QSEM round, villages across several regions and states reported receiving funding for new school toilets (QSEM 2015).

Evidence from more recent rounds continues to highlight that villagers have limited voice in identifying what types of services they can receive. Research has yet to identify examples where villages undertake locally driven village-wide planning approaches to identify and articulate needs from the bottom up. The types of services delivered are invariably centrally designed and rolled out across the states and regions.

The government is, however, providing a greater degree of autonomy in how programs are implemented. Two examples show evidence of this from the most recent round of research. First, a government-funded electrification program observed in multiple villages in Kachin State and Mandalay Region enabled differing approaches to implementation dependent on the state or region. Village meetings were also held to discuss targeting in the village and household level contributions, although in most instances village leaders made the final decisions in consultation with the electricity service provider. Similarly, research has documented the expansion of the government’s _Mya Sein Yaung_ (or Evergreen Village Project). Starting in 2014, in the most recent round of research, it was present in almost 20 percent of villages. The project provides participating villages with 30 million _kyat_ per village to be distributed to villagers as loans for livelihood activities. Although implemented through the Department of Rural Development, 9