1. Ghazala Mansuri and Vijayendra Rao, DECRG
Evaluating Community Based And Community Driven Development: A Critical Review of the Evidence VIEW 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. Some Claims of CDD 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

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

6. Community Participation Social Capital 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 a large 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.