Critical analysis of World Bank's Community Driven Development approach

and its practice in the form of Citizen Community Boards in Pakistan exploring
its potential for Rural Progress.
With the heroic and increasingly frenzied claims in the development discourse of
community participation being the panacea of all development challenges being faced
by the developing countries in the present age, it becomes imperative to evaluate the
claimed goals and actual achievements of this genre of development approach.
This essay focuses on the World Banks approach of Community Driven
Development CDD! and dra"s a comparison "ith Citizen Community Boards
CCBs! in #akistan. $t is interesting to note that although %overnment of #akistan
%&#! never claimed to design the CCBs on the World Bank approach of CDD, but
the striking resemblance cannot be missed.
The first part of the paper provides a critical revie" of the CDD model, analysing the
key issues being faced in the process of community participation in CDD. The second
part 'u(taposes it "ith the theory and practice of the CCBs "orking in #akistan, and
tries to uncover some of the issues obstructing the smooth operationalisation of
community participation, "hich are very similar to the ones being faced by CDD, so
the comparison becomes relevant. The last part recommends some policy changes to
make the "orking of CCBs more effective and ensure greater community
participation for rural progress in #akistan.
&f the various definitions of participation )rancis *++*! ,uotes World Banks
-../0-!, "hich says that participation, is, 1a process through "hich stakeholders
influence and share control over development initiatives, decisions and resources
"hich affect them. $t "ill be interesting to see CDD and CCBs employing
participatory approach as a tool for development and their actual achievement in this
regard.
-
World Banks Community Driven Development approach
The World Bank believes that CDD is the most effective approach to ensure
participatory decision2making and community empo"erment. $t evolved out of World
Banks e(perience of funding poverty alleviation pro'ects. $t resounds of key elements
of Washington Consensus such as local governance, accountability, decentralisation,
local authorities and community partnership and social accountability. $t also
reverberates "ith the older CD models involving state2 society 1synergy, partnership
bet"een regional3 local government and local community.
CDD is an approach to development that supports participatory decision
making, local capacity building, and community control of resources. The five
key pillars of this approach are community empowerment, local government
empowerment, realigning the center, accountability and transparency, and
learning by doing.
World Bank "ebsite, *++4!
The typical CDD methodology is giving funds to communities that have a village
committee or elected leadership! and has links "ith local government or 5%&. The
choice of pro'ect is usually infrastructure and communities have to operate "ith the
cash limit of 67+,+++!. The community has to share *+8 of the pro'ect cost..
Currently the CDD portfolio is appro(imately 6* million a year, "orking in a range of
countries and supporting a variety of urgent needs.
$n spite of all the self2congratulations of World Bank on the success of CDD, the
&perations and 9valuation Department &9D! report *++7, raises a number of critical
issues being faced by this approach.
Critical revie! of CDD approach
The evaluation of &9D *++7! dra"s attention to the issues of sustainability of CBD3
CDD pro'ects, saying that the Banks interventions have failed to provide the
consistent and long2term support needed for a development pro'ect to become
*
sustainable. The report further adds that the bank has not looked into the cost benefit
distribution to the institution, borro"er or community in CDD pro'ects. The report has
found these pro'ects to be more e(pensive to prepare and monitor for the Bank. The
communities have to bear a significant share of cost burden. $t observes that more
success has been achieved in ,uantitative goals like construction of infra structure
rather than ,ualitative goals like capacity enhancement. But increase in infrastructure
does not al"ays ensure better service delivery. There is fear of poor not being al"ays
included into the participation process. The report also includes that there is little hard
evidence of poverty reduction and capacity building impact of these pro'ects. :o far
there has been limited systematic evaluation and no impact assessment of the CDD
pro'ects by the Bank.
While discussing the CDD model of World Bank it is interesting to find the meaning
of participation used or misused in development activity, by different agencies,
according to their need. Cooke and ;othari *+++, as cited by )rancis *++*! suggest
that the lack of precision and meaning of the term #articipation leaves it open to
misuse. <ccording to =ahnema -..>, as cited by )rancis, *++*0/+-! vocabulary of
participation may be used to merely re2clothe e(isting po"er relations as 1more
refined and deceitful means of action and persuasion came to be added to the
paraphernalia of development institutions. Cleaver *++-0?4! also ,uestions the
1heroic claims made for participatory approaches to development.
:imilarly the idea of community according to )rancis *++*! has evolved out of an
une(amined and na@ve vie" of the community being homogeneous and harmonious
and thus having unitary need and priorities. %ui't A :hah -..B! also ,uestion the
simplistic understanding of communities as homogeneous, static and harmonious in
"hich people have similar needs and interests. $n fact this notion according to them
conceals the po"er relations and mas,uerades the pre'udices based on age, class,
gender, religion and ethnicity. Cooke and ;othari *++-0>! cite Briggs and :mith,
-..BC Dosse, -../C :tirrat, -..> "hen they say that community participation
approach masks 1continued centralization in the name of decentralization. Cooke and
;othari *++- p..! argue that the understanding of motivation and incentive to
participate is vague and based on simplistic assumptions made about the rationality
inherent in participating.
?
There is also a fear of e(ternal agendas being imposed on the community. Dose
*++-! talking about redefining the relationship of communities and donor agencies,
sho"s by one of his case studies that local need in that particular pro'ect "as actually
shaped by the local perception of "hat the agency could be realistically e(pected to
provide. Thus according to Cooke and ;othari *++-! participatory planning may be
vie"ed as manipulation of a ne" 1planning kno"ledge
The CDD pro'ects continuous focus has been on infrastructures, "hich are concrete,
simple, visible and tangible pro'ects, thus neglecting income generating and capacity
building activities. 9lite capture is a viral threat "hich creeps into many CDD pro'ects
and re2enforces the social divides, ine,ualities and marginalisations "hich plague
rural communities.
1When a Banksupported intervention attempts to build social capital and empower
communities, the capacitybuilding benefits may be cornered by the !betteroff "
community members# &9D *++70*+!
But the ,uestion arises that is participation an end or a means to an end and does
participation in practice ensure inclusion of allE
The Bank believes that sustainability of CDD pro'ects depends on creating
partnership bet"een community based organizations CB&s! and local governments
F%! based on synergiesC participation, civic engagement and social accountabilityC
the local governance and empo"erment agendas World Bank, *++7!. $t "ill be
interesting to see the CDD model in practice in the local government in #akistan
under the Focal %overnment &rdinance *++-. Then analyse the hurdles in the "ay of
effective community participation in #akistan, even though there is a legal frame"ork
and decentralised government structure to support and mobilise community
participation
/
Case "tudy# Citizen Community Boards $CCBs% in Pakistan
Focal %overnment &rdinance F%&! *++- provided for formation of CCBs in
#akistan, similar to the World Banks prevalent development approach CDD,
attempting to harness the social capital. $t is very similar to World Banks CDD
approach, "hich it claims is the most effective approach to poverty reduction.
Working of CCB is crucial in #akistan "here ?? 8 of population lives belo"
poverty line and 448 is rural based World Bank, *++4! #overty in #akistan is
predominantly a rural phenomenon. Gast ma'ority of rural poor derive their
living from agriculture and off farm employment. The agriculture sector
accounts for *7 8 of %D# and employs /7 8 of the labour force.$D), *++/!
CCBs are envisaged to energise community participation for development,
improvement in service delivery and building social capital. $t is an attempt to
decentralise development planning, empo"er the communities, create a sense of
o"nership to ensure sustainability of the pro'ects and better ,uality of service through
non2elected citizens, voluntary and self2help initiatives. The community has to
contribute *+ 8 in cash of the total estimate of the pro'ect before it can apply for B+8
fund. The involvement of CCBs is intended to ensure transparency and accountability
in the development process due to the contribution of the community in the pro'ects.
F%&, *++-C $D), *++/!
.<ccording to DTC9 *++7! there are -+,+++ CCBs registered, B,BB- according to
#resident of #akistan official "ebsite!. 5ot an impressive figure, keeping in mind the
population size of -7?..4 million people in #akistan. %o#, *++7!. The report also
found out that since introduction of F%& *++-, the a"areness of CCBs among men
has increased from ?./ percent to 7.B percent. <mong "omen it has increased from
-.7 percent to *.* percent. ;eeping the amount of resources being spent on devolution
e(ercise CCBs are still ill understood and generally underestimated
The report also highlights the fact that men, more than "omen, participated in CCBs.
Den "ith some formal education and less vulnerable background "ere more likely to
have heard of CCBs. This makes one ,uestion the role of CCBs in empo"ering the
7
rural and marginalized citizens of #akistan, as education is the most important factor
distinguishing the poor from non2poor in #akistan. $D), *++/!
The ma'ority of #akistani population is rural based and also entrenched in poverty.
Contributing *+ 8 of the pro'ect estimate is ,uite an uphill task for rural population
living on the edge for survival, combating the vagaries of nature to feed their families.
)inancial constraints are being faced by a number of communities that "ould like to
contribute in kind such as labour, but the la" has specified very clearly that *+8 must
be contributed in cashC only then they become eligible for the development fund $C%,
*++/, DTC9, *++7!. The government argues that *+8 contribution builds a sense of
o"nership and responsibility, but its important to see "hether it is one of the hurdles
to the effective "orking of CCBs
The social fabric in #akistan is very intricate and comple(. The inclusion of all,
especially the poorest or marginalized is a serious issue hampering the CCBs. There
are innumerable rifts and divides "ithin the CCBs and it "ill be a mistake to regard
them as homogeneous and harmonious. :trict social hierarchies, different religious
sects, ethnicity and gender divide people. The CCBs are very vulnerable to elite
capture, due to political intervention and feudal social set up. This only reinforces the
old po"er structures of a predominantly feudal society and overlooks the micro socio2
political realities at community level. Women are especially under represented and
usually ignored in CCBs due to gender biased socio2cultural settings
There is more chance of infra structural pro'ects being approved by local council,
rather than income generating ones as they are comple( and a lot of local interests are
involved. <ccording to DTC9 report *++7! most of the CCB pro'ects are either that
of streets pavements or "ater supply schemes, both essential in their o"n regard, but
not income generating. The local politicians at times are more concerned about
building political capital rather than social capital.
Hsually the funds provided by government are 'ust for the capital cost and not the
recurring cost. The issue of recurring cost and sustainability are a disincentive for the
community. <s White *+++! says 1:haring through participation does not necessarily
4
mean sharing in po"er. %enerally the CCBs pro'ects in rural areas suffer from lack
of interest from government officials.
Capacity building of CCBs is a foremost responsibility of the local governments but
its sad to note that very fe" CCBs have been registered in the rural areas, due to
illiteracy, una"areness and lack of training. The CCBs lack technical skills and kno"
ho" in designing and running a pro'ect. <lthough massive a"areness campaign "as
part of the agenda, in the guidelines issued for CCBs, but little has been done on
ground. With little or poor ,uality training, CCBs have not been able to attend to the
needs of the rural poor, as they "ere envisaged to do.
Conclusion
The CCBs like CDD pro'ects face many similar problems of community rifts, elite
capture, cost sharing, and sustainability and over emphasis on infrastructure. This also
,uestions the Banks belief that building link of communities "ith local government
"ill result in empo"erment World Bank, *++7!. <fter looking at the "orking of
CCBs they appear as too state2led and centralised. The ground realities of a feudal
social fabric obstructs the empo"erment process and e(poses the incapacity of CCBs
to transform the e(isting po"er relations on their o"n, for the participatory approach
to take roots.
9mpo"ering the impoverished "as the main goal of the Banks CDD pro'ects and
also of F%& *++-. But it is difficult to comment on the actual impact of CCBs and
CDD pro'ects on poverty reduction and rural livelihoods as neither the World Bank
nor the %overnment of #akistan have undertaken any impact analysis of these
initiatives yet. <ccording to White *+++! transformative participation gives "ay to
empo"erment, leading to greater consciousness of "hat makes and keeps people
poor, and greater ability to make a difference. But this is sadly missing in CDD and
CCBs pro'ects.
)or effective participatory development process, the dynamics "ithin the
communities need to be comprehended and addressed. =ural livelihoods and their
implications must be understood "ithin the larger socio2political setting, for these
>
pro'ects to become truly empo"ering and help alleviate poverty. %iddens -.B/! and
Fong -..*! as cited by Cleaver *++-!, press the need to understand the non2pro'ect
nature of peoples lives. To see the comple( livelihood interlinkages that impact
different areas and also be a"are of the unintentional conse,uences of an intended act.
There is need to uncover the realities of poor people lives to ensure their involvement
in decision2making Cleaver *++-!.
Without scaling up the participatory methods at the provincial and central
government level, the contribution of these pro'ects contribute to the poverty
reduction strategies of the developing countries "ill remain insignificant. #eople have
to be made the focus of development. Chambers -..70?/! believes that 1The role of
uppers have then to changeIfrom being teachers they become facilitators of
learning.
Community participation should not be used by agencies or governments as tokenism,
rhetoric, label or rubberstamp, 'ust to prove their participatory credentials, but it
should be part of a larger socio2political empo"erment process. $t is important to
support participatory approach to development "ith other reforms like land reforms,
'udicial reforms and idea of citizenship, "hich is inseparable from the concept of
democracy, especially in a country like #akistan "here feudal social hierarchies
influence cultural and political practices, any attempt of empo"erment, social
mobilisation and participation is bound to fail in the absence of effective land reforms.
)or true participation in #akistan, socio2political fabric has to be rocked out of its
feudal mentality to make it possible for rural poor to be active participants in
development.
B
References
)rancis, #. *++*! 1Community participation and decision making. $n Jandbook on
development policy and Danagement. C. ;irkpatrick, =.Clarke and C. #olidano, eds.
Chambers, =. -..7! 1#aradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and
development. Chap ? in 5. 5elson and :. Wright, #o"er and #articipatory
Development. Fondon0 $T #ublications.
Cleaver, ). *++-! 1$nstitutions, agency and the limitations of participatory
approaches to development, in #articipation0 The 5e" TyrannyE B. Cooke and H.
;othari, eds. Fondon0 Ked Books.
Cooke, B. and H. ;othari *++-! #articipation0 The 5e" TyrannyE. Fondon0 Ked
Books.
DTC9 *++7! < study on community empo"erment and the role of CCBs vis2L2vis
Focal %overnment &rdinance and Devolution Trust for Community 9mpo"erment
DTC9!.available at
http033""".dtce.org.pk3DTC93do"nloads3:tudyM=esearchM=eport.pdf 7 Darch *++4
%ui't, $. and :hah, D. ;. eds, -..B! 1%eneral introduction0 "aking up to po"er,
process and conflict, in $.%ui't and D.;.:hah eds! The Dyth of Community,
Fondon0 $ntermediate Technology #ublications.
%overnment of #akistan *++7! 9conomic :urvey of #akistan *++/27
%overnment of #akistan *++*! 5ational =econstruction Bureau, #akistan. 1
%uidelines for Citizen Community Boards
%overnment of #akistan *++-! The :B5# Focal %overnment &rdinance *++-,
<vailable at
http033""".nrb.gov.pk3publications3:B5#MFocalM%ovtM&rdinanceM*++-.pdf
*+ &ct *++7!
$C% report *++/ !, Devolution $n #akistan0 =eform &r =egressionE ** Darch *++/ !
$C% <sia =eport, $slamabad3Brussels. <vailable at
http033""".crisisgroup.org3home3inde(.cfmEidN*7/.AlN- -+ Oune *++/!
$D) *++/! #akistan0 #overty =eduction :trategy #aper. $D) country =eport 5o
+/3*/. <vailable at http033""".imf.org3e(ternal3pubs3ft3scr3*++/3cr+/*/.pdf -*
Darch *++4!
DTC9 *++7!, :ocial audit of governance and delivery of public services, #akistan
*++/3+7, 5ational report, <vailable at
http033""".ciet.org3"""3image3do"nload3#5*finalreport9(ec:um.pdf -7 Dec
*++7!
.
The official World Bank "ebsite
http033"eb."orldbank.org3WB:$T939PT9=5<F3T&#$C:39PT:&C$<FD9G9F&#
D95T39PTCDD3+,,contentDD;0*+*7+B+/Qmenu#;07?7>>+Qpage#;0-/B.74Qpi#
;0*-44-BQthe:ite#;0/?+-4-,++.html
World bank *++4 ! #akistan 0 Data and statistics, <vailable at
http033"""."orldbank.org.pk3WB:$T939PT9=5<F3C&H5T=$9:3:&HTJ<:$<9
PT3#<;$:T<59PT53+,,menu#;0*.?+>>Qpage#;0-/--?*Qpi#;0-/--+.Qthe:ite#
;0*.?+7*,++.html - Darch *++4!
World Bank *++7! World Bank operations and evaluation department report *++7!
1The 9ffectiveness of World Bank :upport for Community2Based and 2Driven
Development <vailable at http033"""."orldbank.org3ieg3cbdcdd3 ? Dec *++7!
World Bank *++7! 9(ploring #artnerships bet"een Communities and Focal
%overnments in Community Driven Development0 < )rame"ork Oune *., *++7!
=eport 5o. ?*>+.2%FB, 9nvironmentally and :ocially :ustainable Development
5et"ork, :ocial Development Department, Community Driven Development Team.
White, :. *+++! 1Depoliticising development0 the uses and abuses of participation,
in D. 9ade, ed., Development, 5%&s and Civil :ociety. &(ford0 &(fam.
#resident of #akistan Website
http033""".presidentofpakistan.gov.pk3))%overnance.asp(
<sian development Bank "ebsite
http033""".adb.org3Documents3C:#s3#<;3*++*3csp+-+*.asp
:trengthening citizen community boards $%yed &ohammad 'li Tuesday, Oanuary
?-,*++4
http033""".dailytimes.com.pk3default.aspEpageN*++487C+-87C?-87CstoryM?-2-2
*++4Mpg?M7
-+
--