Ghazala Mansuri and Vijayendra Rao, DECRG

1. Evaluating Community Based And Community Driven Development: A Critical Review of the EvidenceVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE Ghazala Mansuri and Vijayendra Rao, DECRG

2. Purpose of the Paper: • To critically assess independent evidence • To identify gaps and locate lessons for policy

3. Caveats: • CBD vs. CDD- we look at both • We focus on papers by independent scholars or articles in peer reviewed publications.

4. Well Targeted Improves Supply and Quality of Public Services Improves Capacity for Collective Action – “Social Capital” More Sustainable Risk of Elite Capture Is Low Can Be Easily Scaled Up Some Claims of CDD

5. “Community Driven Development relies on “communities” to use their “social capital” to organize themselves and “participate” in development processes.”

6. Community • Endogenous Concept • Analytical Rather than Empirical Concept • Participation • May not always be empowering • May not always be necessary • Social Capital • In its popular use, ignores local relations of power (Bourdieu vs Putnam) • Assumes that social capital can be ‘built’ • Assumes that all ‘social capital’ is good stuff?

7. THE EVIDENCE

8. Poverty Targeting • Center’s ability to target is constrained • Decentralized community based targeting can be better than centralized targeting, but evidence is limited. • Despite this, targeting of the poor within communities tends to be weak. • It is useful to distinguish between “use targeting” and “preference targeting” • Poor targeting may also result from political economy considerations or perverse incentives created by project performance requirements.

9. Service Delivery • Some evidence that CBD/CDD projects create effective community infrastructure and improve welfare outcomes. • Studies do not establish that it is the participatory elements in CBD/CDD projects that are responsible for causally improving project outcomes. • Very few studies that compare CBD/CDD projects with centralized mechanisms of service delivery controlled by line ministries so it is difficult to tell if alternate project designs would have produced better outcomes.

10. Participation & Social Capital • Some quantitative evidence showing an associative relationship between social capital and project effectiveness, but direction of causality is unclear. • CBD/CDD is perhaps likely to be more effective in cohesive and better-managed communities. • Very Little Convincing Evidence-needs much more attention

11. Inequality and Heterogeneity • Impact of economic inequality is complex and perhaps U shaped. • Role of social heterogeneity is even more complex and difficult to measure. • Most empirical studies which devise simple measures of social fractionalization-show that it inhibits collective activity. • The success of community driven development may also be affected by how well heterogeneity is ‘managed’ or ‘regulated.’

12. Elite Capture • Social Networks affect who benefits, political connections matter, generally speaking – elites tend to dominate. • Not clear, however, that this always represents “capture” -- need to distinguish between ‘benevolent’ vs ‘malevolent’ capture. • Evidence shows that targeting is markedly worse in more unequal communities. • Important to understand the checks and balances that are most effective in reducing capture • No studies which look at this question in the context of an appropriate counterfactual.

13. Role of External Agents • Central to local level project effectiveness -but understudied • Good Facilitators need to be charismatic leaders, trainers, anthropologists, engineers, economists, and accountants • But often poorly trained, clash of incentives

14. Role of the State • Upward commitment – state must provide enabling institutional environment. Line ministries need to be responsive to the needs of communities, and national governments should be committed to the idea of transparent, accountable, and democratic governance. • Downward accountability of community leaders– answerable primarily to beneficiaries rather than to political and bureaucratic superiors. • Need to avoid “Supply driven demand driven development”

15. Issues related to scaling up projects • Scaling up led by a led by alarge bureaucracy. • Incentives Problem • Low experience, poor training of facilitators. • Poor Monitoring and Evaluation – “Praise Culture” • Seeing Like State – ignoring local context.

16. How should we scale up? • Best practice is absence of best practice • Learning by Doing • Slow and Gradual – long term horizon • Well evaluated – acceptance of failure. • Integrated with higher levels of administration • Based on evidence not naïve optimism.