Community-driven development: does it build social cohesion or infrastructure? A mixed-method evidence synthesis

White, Howard; Menon, Rema; Waddington, Hugh

doi:10.23846/wp0030

Cited by 45 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first is that the programme design is inappropriatethat is the underlying mechanisms that drive change are not appropriate for the context in which the programme is based, or for particular groups of participants in that context (Pawson, 2006 An example would be a community driven development programme that is supposed to rely on community participation to foster social cohesion, but is unable to support the appropriate level of participation, and therefore cohesion, because people are not comfortable speaking in public meetings due to elite capture (White, Menon, & Waddington, 2018). Similarly, interventions to decentralise decision making in schools are less likely to be effective in low income, low education contexts where communities have low status relative to school staff (Carr-Hill et al, 2018).…”

Section: Pita: Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citizen engagement in public services in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review of participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) initiatives

Waddington

Sonnenfeld

Finetti

et al. 2019

Campbell Systematic Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: How do governance interventions that engage citizens in public service delivery planning, management and oversight impact the quality of and access to services and citizens' quality of life? This systematic review examined high quality evidence from 35 citizen engagement programmes in low-and middle-income countries that promote the engagement of citizens in service delivery through four routes: participation (participatory priority setting); inclusion of marginalised groups; transparency (information on rights and public service performance), and/or citizen efforts to ensure public service accountability (citizen feedback and monitoring); collectively, PITA mechanisms. We collected quantitative and qualitative data from the included studies and used statistical meta-analysis and realist-informed framework synthesis to analyse the findings.Results: The findings suggest that interventions promoting citizen engagement by improving direct engagement between service users and service providers, are often effective in stimulating active citizen engagement in service delivery and realising improvements in access to services and quality of service provision, particularly for services that involve direct interaction between citizens and providers. However, in the absence of complementary interventions to address bottlenecks around service provider supply chains and service use, citizen engagement interventions alone may not improve key wellbeing outcomes for target communities or state-society relations. In addition, interventions promoting citizen engagement by increasing citizen pressures on politicians to hold providers to account, are not usually able to influence service delivery. Conclusions:The citizen engagement interventions studied were more likely to be successful: (1) where the programme targeted a service that citizens access directly from front-line staff, such as healthcare, as opposed to services accessed independently of service provider staff, such as roads; (2) where implementers were able to generate active support and buy-in for the intervention from both citizens and front-line public ---

show abstract

Section: Pita: Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citizen engagement in public services in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review of participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) initiatives

Waddington

Sonnenfeld

Finetti

et al. 2019

Campbell Systematic Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Drawing on Phillips et al (2017), as well as insights from the literature, we theorized good governance can come about through sustained improvements across three domains: within the political system; within the management and administration of public sector offices and institutions; and in the ways in which public officials and service providers engage with service users (external engagement) (Waddington et al, 2018). In this framing, good governance interventions attempt to influence the social contract that mediates the relationships between government and citizens, regarding who has access to what power and in return for what accountability for service provision, through the three domains:…”

Section: The Universe Of Interventions Promoting Pita Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Circles are used to represent underlying assumptions and key factors that facilitate, moderate or create bottlenecks along the casual chain. This preliminary theory of change developed in the systematic review protocol (Waddington et al, 2018) drew on insights from the literature and programmatic best practices. In particular, the framework built on the 2004 World Development Report (World Bank, 2004) theory of change, which articulated the importance of pro-poor governance practices that actively engage end users for effective outcomes, and Rahman and Robinson (2006) who articulated the importance of local ownership and long-term support.…”

Section: How Interventions Promoting Pita Mechanisms Might Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An example would be a community driven development programme that is supposed to rely on community participation to foster social cohesion, but is unable to support the appropriate level of participation, and therefore cohesion, because people are not comfortable speaking in public meetings due to elite capture (White et al, 2018). Similarly, interventions to decentralize decision making in schools are less likely to be effective in low income, low education contexts where communities have low status relative to school staff (Carr-Hill et al, 2018).…”

Section: Figure 2: Indicative Theory Of Change For Citizen Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Molina et al (2016) presented a systematic review of community monitoring studies in L&MICs. King et al (2010) and White et al (2018) reviewed community driven development. Hanna et al (2011) systematically reviewed anticorruption interventions and Lynch et al 2013reviewed of the effect of interventions that improve community accountability on service delivery and corruption.…”

Section: Why This Systematic Review Is Relevantmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector – the effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on environmental and socio-economic outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a mixed-method systematic review

Snilsveit¹,

Stevenson²,

Langer³

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although interventions to improve governance via the "short route" between service users and service providers are often effective in engaging citizens in service delivery and improving access to and quality of services, citizen engagement interventions alone are not likely to improve key well-being outcomes for citizens. Interventions that work through local civil society and stimulate capacity for collective action, particularly amongst vulnerable groups, may be more effective than those that rely on engaging unorganized citizens. This is particularly critical for services wherein citizens do not engage regularly with the providers while using the service, such as infrastructure, and thus pose weaker social sanction threats. Citizen-service provider engagement is more effective when implemented through phased, facilitated processes that are framed collaboratively, as opposed to one-off accountability meetings that are interpreted as confrontational. Interventions that do not incorporate specific measures to facilitate the inclusion of vulnerable groups may not realize equitable outcomes for those groups in the short-term. Barriers to vulnerable groups' inclusion varies widely by context, and inclusion components should be adapted in response to local contexts and needs. 1 Killias et al. (2016) are registering a review on the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures.

show abstract

PROTOCOL: Water, sanitation and hygiene for reducing childhood mortality in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Waddington

Cairncross

2021

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Respiratory tract infections and diarrhoea are the two biggest killers of children in low income contexts. They are closely related to access to, and use of improved water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). However, there is no high quality systematic review that quantifies the effect of WASH improvements on childhood mortality. Existing systematic reviews of WASH improvements measure effects on morbidity, under the (often implicit) assumption that morbidity is closely correlated with mortality. This is at least partly because the impact evaluations on which they are based are only designed to detect changes in morbidity with statistical precision, whereas mortality is a relatively rare outcome. The proposed review will address this evidence synthesis gap, using the greater statistical power of meta‐analysis to pool findings across studies.

show abstract

Community-driven development: does it build social cohesion or infrastructure? A mixed-method evidence synthesis

Cited by 45 publications

References 8 publications

Citizen engagement in public services in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review of participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) initiatives

Citizen engagement in public services in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review of participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) initiatives

Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector – the effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on environmental and socio-economic outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a mixed-method systematic review

PROTOCOL: Water, sanitation and hygiene for reducing childhood mortality in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About