Community-driven development is indelible in the development landscape. It is increasingly
visible in the policy design of many governments, nongovernmental organizations,
and multilateral institutions and features in important debates involving democracy,
governance, institutions, and decentralization. As this research report points out, this has philosophical
and instrumentalist underpinnings, with participation as both means and end. Participatory
or community-driven development is advocated on the basis that, among other advantages,
it can reduce information problems for development planners and beneficiaries, increase the
resources available to poor people, and strengthen the capacity for collective action among
poor and other marginalized societal groups.
While these arguments are persuasive, there is a need to scrutinize the benefits of participation
more closely, along with the complex operational problems inherent in participatory
approaches. The unique contribution of this study—which derives from IFPRI’s research
programs on targeted safety net programs, policy processes, and governance—is threefold.
First, it examines an innovation in public works programs designed to achieve multiple development
objectives, from job creation to community empowerment; second, it uses a unique,
project-level quantitative dataset and econometric analysis to uncover hard evidence of the
effects of different forms of participation on key outcomes of a safety net program; and, third,
it uses rich case study data to explain a range of ways in which participation can affect the outcomes
of public works programs. The report also explores the complexities of institutional
arrangements and policy processes involving government, the private sector, and communitybased
organizations representing a diverse and often conflicting set of values, identities, and
interests. Such an understanding of the policy process is key to understanding why policies
succeed or fail in achieving the expected results.
The study finds that community participation does lead to improved project outcomes, but
it is not an easy road to travel. The authors point out that participation does not have to be all
or nothing, and its best forms are likely to vary under different conditions. Different modalities
exist that can capture local preferences, achieve accountability and transparency, and build
capacity and local empowerment, while at the same time delivering the quality infrastructure
needed by the poor. However, while the research has shown convergence between diverse
program objectives, policymakers will also have to resolve trade-offs by weighing economic
and social priorities. Furthermore, the research shows that policy processes do not end with
policymaking—decisions must be supported by solid commitments and institutional arrangements
that enable agreements to be carried out and monitored.
While many of the findings of this study are specific to the South African context, many
of the issues confronted are common to the challenges of participation, community-driven development,
scaling up, and policy processes encountered across the globe. The report provides
research methods and insights for researchers, policymakers, and development practitioners
seeking a better understanding of the relationship between governance and poverty alleviation.
