“No, I don’t have anything to report — but thanks for asking.”

That’s the most common response heard by the Myanmar government when they text their people — advised by Zubair Bhatti, a senior public sector management specialist at the World Bank.

Bhatti is shifting how people respond to their governments, one text message at a time. First in Pakistan, where he worked as a district commissioner, and now in Myanmar with the World Bank, he works to check in with people after they’ve used a government service to see whether they’ve experienced corruption.

Bhatti works with the government to help people report and come to terms with the corruption taking place in their societies, and asks them to act upon it. But is nudging enough to shift attitudes that have persisted for centuries? And are there just too many barriers — including even politeness — to reporting corruption?

Cutting friction

Working since 2019 with Myanmar’s Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), Bhatti has been helping the agency use behavioural insights thinking to build a reporting SMS service, feeding back on government services. Some 30,000 messages have now been sent to Myanmar’s public service users, with a fifth responding with their comments.

The barriers are high — Transparency International ranked Myanmar 132nd out of 180 countries in its 2018 Corruption Perception Index. Long-standing practices in the country like asking for “donations” for services are common.

"Government funds it, government leads it. Government has to have the buy-in. After all, it is the government which takes the blame, so only the government can take corrective action”

Bhatti’s work at the World Bank aims to “reduce the friction for the citizen”. The organisation has been using SMS text messages to gain feedback from beneficiaries of government services and check for corrupt behaviours like bribery.

To start, the method of delivery was crucial, and informed by behavioural insights thinking. Texts were chosen over phone calls or in-person surveys, as they were considered immediate, but not too intrusive. “If you get a text message, the phone is in your pocket,” said Bhatti. “So you can reply straight away, or you can leave it for later.”

The service is personalised, using high-profile ministries to front the messages. “Citizens are happy that an authority figure is reaching out,” said Bhatti. The team also mail-merges the texts to include the user’s name, to establish credibility. “It builds awareness that it isn’t a spam message,” he said.

The fact that the government sends messages proactively is a key strand in the service’s DNA. “Government initiates the contact, government asks the questions,” said Bhatti. The fact that it’s the government sending you a message builds the project’s legitimacy, showing that the government takes its people's concerns seriously.

But especially when compared to work done in the space led by NGOs, the government leadership means that it’s scalable — something Bhatti believes is central to its success.

“Government funds it, government leads it,” he said. “Government has to have the buy-in. After all, it is the government which takes the blame, so only the government can take corrective action.”

Positive feedback

A big challenge, Bhatti says, is getting people to write back. And when they do, an even bigger challenge is getting them to reply frankly: only a small fraction reports negative feedback. The majority of responses are positive.

“There are several reasons that this might be,” he said. “One, the service isn’t as bad as you imagine it to be. Two, everyone’s expectations are different. Three, they might just not be interested in an expensive dialogue with the government."

“It’s leaving an impression on the citizen that the government cares, and wants to reach out”

This inertia could be seen as cause for concern, but Bhatti tries to get governments to see it differently. “You get the government saying: ‘look, he hasn’t given negative feedback,’” he said. “But instead I would argue: he’s excited about a response from you! You must carry on. Building trust is a long, slow process.”

“There’s clearly a positive emotion when the citizen says, ‘no, but thanks for asking,’” he said. “It’s leaving an impression on the citizen that the government cares, and wants to reach out.”

This reaction is vital, especially when it may be too expensive to investigate individual cases of poor performance. Rather than help with specific cases, Bhatti suggested that instead the primary aim of his work is to engage with people. “The element of being listened to is powerful,” he said.

And people receive a response from the service: the ACC try to acknowledge the report two to three weeks later. “Again, it’s about listening,” he said.

“If you go to the passport office, you’re unlikely to return, so it’s easier to report. But if you have a corrupt teacher, who’s teaching your kids every day, it’s much harder to complain”

Another aim of the initiative is to let the delivery providers in the field know that they are being actively monitored. Bhatti cites a 2018 paper, which explored how monitoring improved service provision for farmers in India.

Officials were informed that their performance would be measured by calls to the farmers, checking they received the appropriate funds. It led to an almost 8% improvement in money properly changing hands.

Barriers to action

The barriers to government action following a report are high, because bringing evidence against a bribe is difficult and expensive. Stressing the cost, Bhatti reflected that “you can’t pay $5 in bribes and then spend $500 pursuing the case. Classic grievance investigation mechanisms just aren’t cost-effective for the citizen reporting cases of petty bribery.”

There’s also nuance to reporting which depends on the type of service people are using. Bhatti explained that it’s much easier to report corruption if you don’t use the agency in question frequently.

“If you go to the passport office, you’re unlikely to return, so it’s easier to report,” he said. “But if you have a corrupt teacher, who’s teaching your kids every day, it’s much harder to complain.”

It’s awkward that sometimes corruption can benefit people too. “Sometimes people may actively participate or may not realise that corruption is happening,” said Bhatti. “They may want to jump the queue, or don’t quite know how much a service should cost, so they don’t question it.”

Next steps

Bhatti has six months left in Myanmar, and will use the time to continue to build capacity in the country. His small team of two will continue implementing the work once he moves on.

It’s a long struggle to get people initially on board, and to get projects off the ground. “I always find it’s more of a change management question than a technology question,” he said. “There are many champions in the government interested in improving service delivery. One has to find them though.”

Previously the administrative lead in a district in the Punjab, Pakistan, Bhatti helped build the "Citizen Feedback Monitoring Program", which sent over 12,000 messages to people every day by 2014 — so he’s used to setting up initiatives and leaving them to flourish without him.

Bhatti is resolute, but optimistic. “It’s a long struggle,” he said. The complexity of human behaviour means you won’t always get the results you want. There is no panacea.”

“Mobile phones are making many things possible. How could we reach so many poor citizens at low cost 30 years ago?”

“It’s complex. But it’s exciting.” — Emma Sisk