Recent analysis identifies the following broad lessons on how to support inclusive institutions:
- Analysing institutions: There are missed opportunities to support inclusive institutions where practitioners do not analyse how institutions are enabling or constraining the inclusion of marginalised people and groups. Development practitioners, who work on institutions in many different ways across diverse sectors, often do not check if the institutions enable the inclusion or exclusion of marginalised people and groups. Likewise, practitioners working on development interventions that aim to achieve inclusive outcomes do not always consider the role of institutions.
- Understanding power relations and incentives: Top-down, technocratic reforms that do not work with local institutions have produced disappointing results (Andrews, 2013; Unsworth, 2010). Real change requires transforming the social, political and economic drivers of exclusive institutions. This includes power relationships and incentives (Banerjee & Duflo, 2011: 265; OECD, 2012b: 16).
- Navigating between new and existing institutions: There can be tension and conflict over whether to work with existing institutions or create new ones. For example, the Afghanistan National Solidarity Programme introduced new institutions meant to support community participation and, specifically, women’s empowerment. It took the risk of directly challenging traditional cultural norms and local power-holders, but then faced criticism for not working with customary village-level organisations (Calder & Hakimi, 2009: 21; Unsworth, 2010: 7).
- Targeting and unifying: Targeted approaches to inclusion risk perpetuating difference and discrimination. Effective approaches have balanced targeted interventions with integrationist policies that unify society (DFID, 2010b: 73; Kabeer, 2010: 10).
- Understanding social norms and behavioural change: There is growing interest in how behaviour change interventions can create more inclusive institutions. These approaches apply insights from behavioural economics to individual and community behaviour (World Bank, 2013a: 43). However, some experts caution such interventions rarely work in isolation, and need to be linked to efforts to tackle broader structural determinants of exclusion.
- Coherence across institutions: Research highlights the importance of coherence between support to institutions operating in different spheres (community and family, economic, political) (Dawson, 2009). A cross-sectoral strategy can be useful to address interlocking institutional issues (Ferguson, 2008).
- Donors’ roles: Donor support has been effective where it has supported local processes of change, worked with broad-based coalitions of state and non-state actors, provided long-term and flexible support, and learnt from failures (Carothers & de Gramont, 2013; McGee & Gaventa, 2010; Jütting et al., 2007; Mansuri & Rao, 2013).
Resources on supporting institutional reform
- DFID (2003a) Guidelines on Promoting Institutional and Organisational Development.
- Guidance for approaches to institutional reform that work with local politics and power relations: Centre for The Future State (Unsworth, 2010); Africa Power and Politics Programme (Booth, 2012); Andrews (2013); Carothers and de Gramont (2013); and Tavakoli et al. (2013).
- Key references for behavioural economics and nudge theory: Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008) and Thinking, Fast and Slow (Kahneman, 2011). The forthcoming World Development Report 2015: Mind and Culture aims to help development practitioners use behavioural sciences in programme design, implementation, and evaluation.
- Andrews, M. (2013). The limits of institutional reform in development. New York: Cambridge University Press. See document online
- Banerjee, A. & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty. PublicAffairs. See document online
- Booth, D. (2012). Development as a collective action problem: Addressing the real challenges of African governance. Synthesis report of the Africa Power and Politics Programme. London: Overseas Development Institute. See document online
- Calder, J. & Hakimi, A. (2009). Statebuilding and community engagement without reconciliation: a case study of Afghanistan’s National Solidarity Program. Future Generations Graduate School. See document online
- Carothers, T. & de Gramont, D. (2013). Development aid confronts politics: The almost revolution. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. See document online
- Dawson, E. (2009). Mid-term evaluation of the UN Joint Programme on GE in Albania (July 2008-June 2011). See document online
- DFID (2003a). Promoting institutional appraisal and development. Guidelines for DFID. London: Department for International Development. See document online
- DFID (2010b). The politics of poverty: Elites, citizens and states: Findings from ten years of DFID-funded research on governance and fragile states 2001–2010. London: Department for International Development. See document online
- Ferguson, C. (2008). Promoting social integration: Background paper for discussion. Report commissioned by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) for the Expert Group Meeting on Promoting Social Integration, Helsinki, Finland, 8-10 July. See document online
- Jütting, J., Drechsler D., Bartsch, S. & de Soysa, I. (eds.) (2007). Informal institutions: How social norms help or hinder development. Paris: OECD. See document online
- Kabeer, N. (2010). Can the MDGs provide a pathway to social justice? The challenge of intersecting inequalities. New York: MDG Achievement Fund, Institute of Development Studies and UNDP. See document online
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin. See document online
- Mansuri, G. & V. Rao (2013). Localizing Development: Does participation work? World Bank Policy Research Report. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. See document online
- McGee, R., & Gaventa. J. (2010). Review of impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives. Synthesis Report Prepared for the Transparency and Accountability Initiative Workshop, October 14–15. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. See document online
- OECD (2012b). Poverty reduction and pro-poor growth: The role of empowerment. Paris: OECD. See document online
- Tavakoli, H., Simson, R., Tilley, H. & Booth, D. (2013). Unblocking results: Using aid to address governance constraints in public service delivery. London: Overseas Development Institute. See document online
- Thaler, R.H. & Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. London: Yale University Press.
- Unsworth, S. (2010). An upside down view of governance. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. See document online
- World Bank (2013a). Inclusion matters: The foundation for shared prosperity. Washington D.C.: World Bank. See document online