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 Bank’s approach of Community Driven

Development (CDD) and draws a comparison with Citizen Community Boards

(CCBs) in Pakistan. It is interesting to note that although Government of Pakistan

(GOP) 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 review of the CDD model, analysing the

key issues being faced in the process of community participation in CDD. The second

part juxtaposes it with the theory and practice of the CCBs working in Pakistan, and

tries to uncover some of the issues obstructing the smooth operationalisation of

community participation, which 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 working of CCBs more effective and ensure greater community

participation for rural progress in Pakistan.

Of the various definitions of participation Francis (2002) quotes World Bank’s

(1994:1), which says that participation, is, ‘a process through which stakeholders

influence and share control over development initiatives, decisions and resources

which affect them’. It will be interesting to see CDD and CCBs employing

participatory approach as a tool for development and their actual achievement in this

regard.

1

World Bank’s Community Driven Development approach

The World Bank believes that CDD is the most effective approach to ensure

participatory decision-making and community empowerment. It evolved out of World

Bank’s experience of funding poverty alleviation projects. It resounds of key elements

of Washington Consensus such as local governance, accountability, decentralisation,

local authorities and community partnership and social accountability. It also

reverberates with the older CD models involving state- society ‘synergy’, partnership

between regional/ 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 website, 2006)

The typical CDD methodology is giving funds to communities that have a village

committee (or elected leadership) and has links with local government or NGO. The

choice of project is usually infrastructure and communities have to operate with the

cash limit of ($50,000). The community has to share 20% of the project cost..

Currently the CDD portfolio is approximately $2 million a year, working in a range of

countries and supporting a variety of urgent needs.

In spite of all the self-congratulations of World Bank on the success of CDD, the

Operations and Evaluation Department (OED) report 2005, raises a number of critical

issues being faced by this approach.

Critical review of CDD approach

The evaluation of OED (2005) draws attention to the issues of sustainability of CBD/

CDD projects, saying that the Bank’s interventions have failed to provide the

consistent and long-term support needed for a development project to become

2

sustainable. The report further adds that the bank has not looked into the cost benefit

distribution to the institution, borrower or community in CDD projects. The report has

found these projects to be more expensive to prepare and monitor for the Bank. The

communities have to bear a significant share of cost burden. It observes that more

success has been achieved in quantitative goals like construction of infra structure

rather than qualitative goals like capacity enhancement. But increase in infrastructure

does not always ensure better service delivery. There is fear of poor not being always

included into the participation process. The report also includes that there is little hard

evidence of poverty reduction and capacity building impact of these projects. So far

there has been limited systematic evaluation and no impact assessment of the CDD

projects 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 Kothari (2000, as cited by Francis 2002) suggest

that the lack of precision and meaning of the term Participation leaves it open to

misuse. According to Rahnema 1997, as cited by Francis, 2002:401) vocabulary of

participation may be used to merely re-clothe existing power relations as ‘more

refined and deceitful means of action and persuasion came to be added to the

paraphernalia of development institutions’. Cleaver (2001:36) also questions the

‘heroic claims’ made for participatory approaches to development.

Similarly the idea of community according to Francis (2002) has evolved out of an

unexamined and naïve view of the community being homogeneous and harmonious

and thus having unitary need and priorities. Guijt & Shah (1998) also question the

simplistic understanding of communities as homogeneous, static and harmonious in

which people have similar needs and interests. In fact this notion according to them

conceals the power relations and masquerades the prejudices based on age, class,

gender, religion and ethnicity. Cooke and Kothari (2001:7) cite Briggs and Smith,

1998; Mosse, 1994; Stirrat, 1997 when they say that community participation

approach masks ‘continued centralization in the name of decentralization’. Cooke and

Kothari (2001 p.9) argue that the understanding of motivation and incentive to

participate is vague and based on simplistic assumptions made about the rationality

inherent in participating.

3

There is also a fear of external agendas being imposed on the community. Mose

(2001) talking about redefining the relationship of communities and donor agencies,

shows by one of his case studies that local need in that particular project was actually

shaped by the local perception of what the agency could be realistically expected to

provide. Thus according to Cooke and Kothari (2001) participatory planning may be

viewed as manipulation of a new ‘planning knowledge’

The CDD projects continuous focus has been on infrastructures, which are concrete,

simple, visible and tangible projects, thus neglecting income generating and capacity

building activities. Elite capture is a viral threat which creeps into many CDD projects

and re-enforces the social divides, inequalities and marginalisations which plague

rural communities.

‘When a Bank-supported intervention attempts to build social capital and empower

communities, the capacity-building benefits may be cornered by the “better-off ”

community members’ (OED 2005:20)

But the question arises that is participation an end or a means to an end and does

participation in practice ensure inclusion of all?

The Bank believes that sustainability of CDD projects depends on creating

partnership between community based organizations (CBOs) and local governments

(LG) based on synergies; participation, civic engagement and social accountability;

the local governance and empowerment agendas (World Bank, 2005). It will be

interesting to see the CDD model in practice in the local government in Pakistan

under the Local Government Ordinance 2001. Then analyse the hurdles in the way of

effective community participation in Pakistan, even though there is a legal framework

and decentralised government structure to support and mobilise community

participation

4

Case Study: Citizen Community Boards (CCBs) in Pakistan

Local Government Ordinance (LGO) 2001 provided for formation of CCBs in

Pakistan, similar to the World Bank’s prevalent development approach CDD,

attempting to harness the social capital. It is very similar to World Bank’s CDD

approach, which it claims is the most effective approach to poverty reduction.

Working of CCB is crucial in Pakistan where 33 % of population lives below poverty

line and 66% is rural based (World Bank, 2006) Poverty in Pakistan is predominantly

a rural phenomenon. Vast majority of rural poor derive their living from agriculture

and off farm employment. The agriculture sector accounts for 25 % of GDP and

employs 45 % of the labour force.(IMF, 2004)

CCBs are envisaged to energise community participation for development,

improvement in service delivery and building social capital. It is an attempt to

decentralise development planning, empower the communities, create a sense of

ownership to ensure sustainability of the projects and better quality of service through

non-elected citizens, voluntary and self-help initiatives. The community has to

contribute 20 % in cash of the total estimate of the project before it can apply for 80%

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 projects.

(LGO, 2001; IMF, 2004)

.According to DTCE (2005) there are 10,000 CCBs registered, (8,881 according to

President of Pakistan official website). Not an impressive figure, keeping in mind the

population size of 153.96 million people in Pakistan. ( GoP, 2005). The report also

found out that since introduction of LGO 2001, the awareness of CCBs among men

has increased from 3.4 percent to 5.8 percent. Among women it has increased from

1.5 percent to 2.2 percent. Keeping the amount of resources being spent on devolution

exercise CCBs are still ill understood and generally underestimated

The report also highlights the fact that men, more than women, participated in CCBs.

Men with some formal education and less vulnerable background were more likely to

have heard of CCBs. This makes one question the role of CCBs in empowering the

5

rural and marginalized citizens of Pakistan, as education is the most important factor

distinguishing the poor from non-poor in Pakistan. (IMF, 2004)

The majority of Pakistani population is rural based and also entrenched in poverty.

Contributing 20 % of the project estimate is quite an uphill task for rural population

living on the edge for survival, combating the vagaries of nature to feed their families.

Financial constraints are being faced by a number of communities that would like to

contribute in kind such as labour, but the law has specified very clearly that 20% must

be contributed in cash; only then they become eligible for the development fund (ICG,

2004, DTCE, 2005). The government argues that 20% contribution builds a sense of

ownership and responsibility, but its important to see whether it is one of the hurdles

to the effective working of CCBs

The social fabric in Pakistan is very intricate and complex. The inclusion of all,

especially the poorest or marginalized is a serious issue hampering the CCBs. There

are innumerable rifts and divides within the CCBs and it will be a mistake to regard

them as homogeneous and harmonious. Strict 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 power structures of a predominantly feudal society and overlooks the micro socio-

political realities at community level. Women are especially under represented and

usually ignored in CCBs due to gender biased socio-cultural settings

There is more chance of infra structural projects being approved by local council,

rather than income generating ones as they are complex and a lot of local interests are

involved. According to DTCE report (2005) most of the CCB projects are either that

of streets pavements or water supply schemes, both essential in their own regard, but

not income generating. The local politicians at times are more concerned about

building political capital rather than social capital.

Usually the funds provided by government are just for the capital cost and not the

recurring cost. The issue of recurring cost and sustainability are a disincentive for the

community. As White (2000) says ‘Sharing through participation does not necessarily

6

mean sharing in power’. Generally the CCBs projects in rural areas suffer from lack

of interest from government officials.

Capacity building of CCBs is a foremost responsibility of the local governments but

it’s sad to note that very few CCBs have been registered in the rural areas, due to

illiteracy, unawareness and lack of training. The CCBs lack technical skills and know

how in designing and running a project. Although massive awareness campaign was

part of the agenda, in the guidelines issued for CCBs, but little has been done on

ground. With little or poor quality training, CCBs have not been able to attend to the

needs of the rural poor, as they were envisaged to do.

Conclusion

The CCBs like CDD projects face many similar problems of community rifts, elite

capture, cost sharing, and sustainability and over emphasis on infrastructure. This also

questions the Bank’s belief that building link of communities with local government

will result in empowerment (World Bank, 2005). After looking at the working of

CCBs they appear as too state-led and centralised. The ground realities of a feudal

social fabric obstructs the empowerment process and exposes the incapacity of CCBs

to transform the existing power relations on their own, for the participatory approach

to take roots.

Empowering the impoverished was the main goal of the Bank’s CDD projects and

also of LGO 2001. But it is difficult to comment on the actual impact of CCBs and

CDD projects on poverty reduction and rural livelihoods as neither the World Bank

nor the Government of Pakistan have undertaken any impact analysis of these

initiatives yet. According to White (2000) transformative participation gives way to

empowerment, leading to greater consciousness of what makes and keeps people

poor, and greater ability to make a difference. But this is sadly missing in CDD and

CCBs projects.

For effective participatory development process, the dynamics within the

communities need to be comprehended and addressed. Rural livelihoods and their

implications must be understood within the larger socio-political setting, for these

7

projects to become truly empowering and help alleviate poverty. Giddens (1984) and

Long (1992) as cited by Cleaver (2001), press the need to understand the non-project

nature of people’s lives. To see the complex livelihood interlinkages that impact

different areas and also be aware of the unintentional consequences of an intended act.

There is need to uncover the realities of poor people lives to ensure their involvement

in decision-making (Cleaver 2001).

Without scaling up the participatory methods at the provincial and central

government level, the contribution of these projects contribute to the poverty

reduction strategies of the developing countries will remain insignificant. People have

to be made the focus of development. Chambers (1995:34) believes that ‘The role of

uppers have then to change…from being teachers they become facilitators of

learning’.

Community participation should not be used by agencies or governments as tokenism,

rhetoric, label or rubberstamp, just to prove their participatory credentials, but it

should be part of a larger socio-political empowerment process. It is important to

support participatory approach to development with other reforms like land reforms,

judicial reforms and idea of citizenship, which is inseparable from the concept of

democracy, especially in a country like Pakistan where feudal social hierarchies

influence cultural and political practices, any attempt of empowerment, social

mobilisation and participation is bound to fail in the absence of effective land reforms.

For true participation in Pakistan, socio-political fabric has to be rocked out of its

feudal mentality to make it possible for rural poor to be active participants in

development.

8

ReferencesFrancis, P. (2002) ‘Community participation and decision making’. In Handbook on development policy and Management. C. Kirkpatrick, R.Clarke and C. Polidano, eds.

Chambers, R. (1995) ‘Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development’. Chap 3 in N. Nelson and S. Wright, Power and Participatory Development. London: IT Publications.

Cleaver, F. (2001) ‘Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory approaches to development’, in Participation: The New Tyranny? B. Cooke and U. Kothari, eds. London: Zed Books.

Cooke, B. and U. Kothari (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny?. London: Zed Books.

DTCE (2005) A study on community empowerment and the role of CCBs vis-à-vis Local Government Ordinance and Devolution Trust for Community Empowerment (DTCE).available at http://www.dtce.org.pk/DTCE/downloads/Study_Research_Report.pdf (5 March 2006

Guijt, I. and Shah, M. K. (eds, 1998) ‘General introduction: waking up to power, process and conflict’, in I.Guijt and M.K.Shah (eds) The Myth of Community, London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Government of Pakistan (2005) Economic Survey of Pakistan 2004-5

Government of Pakistan (2002) National Reconstruction Bureau, Pakistan. ‘ Guidelines for Citizen Community Boards’

Government of Pakistan (2001) The SBNP Local Government Ordinance 2001, Available at http://www.nrb.gov.pk/publications/SBNP_Local_Govt_Ordinance_2001.pdf(20 Oct 2005)

ICG report (2004 ), Devolution In Pakistan: Reform Or Regression? (22 March 2004 )ICG Asia Report, Islamabad/Brussels. Available at http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2549&l=1 (10 June 2004)

IMF (2004) Pakistan: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. IMF country Report No 04/24. Available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2004/cr0424.pdf ( 12 March 2006)

DTCE (2005), Social audit of governance and delivery of public services, Pakistan 2004/05, National report, Available at http://www.ciet.org/www/image/download/PN2finalreportExecSum.pdf (15 Dec 2005)

9

The official World Bank website http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/EXTCDD/0,,contentMDK:20250804~menuPK:535770~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:430161,00.html

World bank (2006 ) Pakistan : Data and statistics, Available at http://www.worldbank.org.pk/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/PAKISTANEXTN/0,,menuPK:293077~pagePK:141132~piPK:141109~theSitePK:293052,00.html ( 1 March 2006)

World Bank (2005) World Bank operations and evaluation department report (2005) ‘The Effectiveness of World Bank Support for Community-Based and -Driven Development’ Available at http://www.worldbank.org/ieg/cbdcdd/ (3 Dec 2005)

World Bank (2005) Exploring Partnerships between Communities and Local Governments in Community Driven Development: A Framework (June 29, 2005) Report No. 32709-GLB, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network, Social Development Department, Community Driven Development Team.

White, S. (2000) ‘Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation’, in D. Eade, ed., Development, NGOs and Civil Society. Oxford: Oxfam.

President of Pakistan Website http://www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk/FFGovernance.aspx

Asian development Bank website http://www.adb.org/Documents/CSPs/PAK/2002/csp0102.asp

Strengthening citizen community boards —Syed Mohammad Ali Tuesday, January 31,2006http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C01%5C31%5Cstory_31-1-2006_pg3_5

10

11