The paradigm for providing affordable electricity for the world's poor-power for development-has begun to change. Historically, centralized governments built large consolidated power plants and distribution and transmission lines with the ultimate goal of providing electricity to all of their citizens. It has become increasingly common in recent decades, however, for donors, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), firms, and communities to collaborate with governments to develop small-scale localized energy systems known as distributed generation (DG) either as complements or alternatives to centralized operations. DG programs have been implemented around the world but with a mixed record of success. Based on an analysis of the existing case study literature, we examine DG program goals and outcomes, identifying major factors that affect these outcomes, including appropriately chosen technology, adequate financing and payment arrangements, ongoing end users' involvement, and supportive national policies. We highlight the importance of institutions for collaborative governance in the pursuit of these factors.

Field research in political science: practices and principles "Fieldwork continues to be the most productive and exciting part of what we do." Philippe Schmitter (quoted in Munck and Snyder 2007, 337) Fieldwork is "one of the more disagreeable activities that humanity has fashioned for itself."

Throughout the Global South, diverse non-state actors have historically played critical roles in enabling populations to meet their basic needs, whether by providing or mediating access to social benefits and programs. To date, little research explores non-state social welfare, particularly in the Global South, and existing studies tend to focus on technical and administrative concerns while neglecting the potential political ramifications. This introductory essay aims to conceptualize and theorize the politics of non-state social welfare. We highlight three dimensions of the political consequences of non-state social welfare, including the implications for state capacity, equity of access to social welfare, and experiences of citizenship. Based on this framework as well as the findings of the empirical contributions to the special issue, the essay concludes that non-state provision may pose more political challenges than proponents recognize, but its effects are ultimately contingent on the types of relationships between state and non-state providers.Throughout the Global South, non-state actors have historically played critical roles in meeting the basic needs of populations. In many parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle St Comp Int Dev (2011) 46:1-21

In recent years, a variety of efforts have been made in political science to enable, encourage, or require scholars to be more open and explicit about the bases of their empirical claims and, in turn, make those claims more readily evaluable by others. While qualitative scholars have long taken an interest in making their research open, reflexive, and systematic, the recent push for overarching transparency norms and requirements has provoked serious concern within qualitative research communities and raised fundamental questions about the meaning, value, costs, and intellectual relevance of transparency for qualitative inquiry. In this Perspectives Reflection, we crystallize the central findings of a three-year deliberative process—the Qualitative Transparency Deliberations (QTD)—involving hundreds of political scientists in a broad discussion of these issues. Following an overview of the process and the key insights that emerged, we present summaries of the QTD Working Groups’ final reports. Drawing on a series of public, online conversations that unfolded at www.qualtd.net, the reports unpack transparency’s promise, practicalities, risks, and limitations in relation to different qualitative methodologies, forms of evidence, and research contexts. Taken as a whole, these reports—the full versions of which can be found in the Supplementary Materials—offer practical guidance to scholars designing and implementing qualitative research, and to editors, reviewers, and funders seeking to develop criteria of evaluation that are appropriate—as understood by relevant research communities—to the forms of inquiry being assessed. We dedicate this Reflection to the memory of our coauthor and QTD working group leader Kendra Koivu.1

No abstract