This study examines involuntary resettlement in the Manila South Commuter Railway Project in the Philippines, supported by Korea’s Economic Development Cooperation Fund (EDCF), from the perspective of social accountability developed by Jonathan Fox. Rather than treating residents affected by development projects primarily as passive victims, the study conceptualizes them as active actors capable of making claims and demanding accountability. It analyzes how residents organized their demands, the channels through which those demands were conveyed, the role of civil society as interlocutors, and the institutional responses that emerged in both the recipient and donor countries.
The findings show that affected residents transformed individual grievances arising from forced relocation into organized, rights-based demands concerning housing, livelihoods, access to information, meaningful consultation, and relocation within or near the city. They pursued vertical channels by making claims directly on Philippine government agencies and political institutions, while also extending their demands beyond the recipient country through external channels directed toward the Korean government and aid institutions. Civil society organizations in the Philippines and Korea supported residents’ organizing, connected their claims to institutional arenas, and brought their concerns into public debate, thereby functioning as interlocutors that amplified residents’ Voice.
These organized demands helped activate accountability mechanisms in both the Philippines and Korea and led to partial institutional responses, including the temporary suspension of evictions, changes in relocation procedures, and the review and monitoring of resettlement plans and living conditions. However, these responses were not sustained through consistent policy implementation, effective remedy, or the restoration of residents’ livelihoods and living conditions. However, these responses were not sustained through consistent policy implementation or effective remedy, and residents continued to experience livelihood insecurity and poor living conditions after distant relocation. These limitations resulted from the diffusion of response responsibility across multiple actors, the priority placed on national development and infrastructure expansion in the recipient country, constraints on its financial and implementation capacity, and the donor country’s emphasis on the project’s economic and technical viability over its social impacts, together with inadequate accountability mechanisms.
The case demonstrates that organized Voice can serve as a critical trigger for social accountability in international development cooperation. Yet Voice alone does not guarantee substantive rights protection. For residents’ demands to lead to meaningful and sustained outcomes, institutional Teeth must also be capable of translating those demands into policy adjustment, implementation, corrective action, and remedy across both recipient and donor contexts.