How have community-driven development (CDD) projects contributed to the effectiveness of decentralisation reforms? This paper from the World Bank surveys CDD programmes in Indonesia, Cambodia and the Philippines to assess how far this approach improves accountability, service delivery and regulatory frameworks in local government. It argues that CDD presents great opportunities for enhancing civic participation, state responsiveness and cost-effective service provision, although, as a new development approach, it requires further evaluation.
Decentralisation is often held to reduce the gap between state and citizen. However, it is susceptible to “elite capture”, where public decision making is distorted by the disproportionate influence of well-connected groups, who can marginalise poorer communities.
CDD seeks to off-set this risk and enhance civic participation by giving communities control over decision-making, management and the use of development funds. CDD varies from programme to programme but generally consists of a participatory planning process at village or sub-district level, leading to funding and implementation of priority activities. Initiatives aim to provide communities with the power, information and skills to drive the development process, rather than becoming passive beneficiaries.
Various findings are made on CDD’s strengths:
- CDD can provide mechanisms to accelerate civic participation and state accountability through planning, decision-making and implementation. In Cambodia, CDD feeds directly into the country’s decentralisation process; in the Philippines, demand-driven, bottom-up planning leads to community investment grants; in Indonesia, quotas ensure that women participate in planning forums.
- CDD discourages “elite capture” of decentralised mechanisms. It encourages citizens to demand government accountability and transparency through the requirement for information disclosure, anonymous complaint mechanisms and rigorous community monitoring of the use of public funds.
- CDD addresses the funding shortfalls commonly experienced by decentralised processes by transferring finances directly from the national to local levels. CDD disbursements are often quicker than transfers through line departments and attract additional financing from government, private sources and communities themselves.
- CDD projects are more cost-effective than comparable small-scale works delivered by other public agencies. Programmes are popular with communities and governments as they deliver services in a demand-responsive way that generates employment and alleviates the management burden on state bureaucracies.
- CDD programmes contribute to the institutionalisation of participatory, transparent mechanisms in decentralisation reforms. National ministries are drawing on lessons learnt from CDD to construct regulatory frameworks and implement new financial management and procurement procedures.
In scaling up CDD projects in decentralised contexts, further challenges may exist. Decision-makers should explore the possibilities for further integration and coordination of CDD in broader decision-making processes:
- Policymakers need to explore whether CDD can become an overall development strategy or just an approach appropriate to small, discrete development investments.
- Possible expansion requires that CDD engages more effectively with sectoral agencies to make them become more demand-driven.
- CDD should explore improving links with private service providers. Projects already use some private suppliers, although further local procurement may sacrifice economies of scale.
- Further integration of CDD into government planning and budgeting procedures could be investigated, but financial flows must remain transparent to the public.
- CDD may only be appropriate where developed management structures, a conducive social environment and direct fiscal transfer mechanisms exist. Projects should not be required to achieve unrealistic objectives and should complement, not replace, local government reform.
