CDD in Post-Conflict and Conflict-Affected Areas : Experiences from East Asia
Community Driven Development (CDD) projects are now a major component of World Bank assistance to many developing countries. While varying greatly in size and form, such projects aim to ensure that communities have substantive control in deciding h...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/121891468036853572/CDD-in-post-conflict-and-conflict-affected-areas-experiences-from-East-Asia http://hdl.handle.net/10986/27511 |
| Summary: | Community Driven Development (CDD)
projects are now a major component of World Bank assistance
to many developing countries. While varying greatly in size
and form, such projects aim to ensure that communities have
substantive control in deciding how project funds should be
used. Giving beneficiaries the power to manage project
resources is believed by its proponents to lead to more
efficient and effective fund use. It is also claimed that
project-initiated participatory processes can have wider
'spillover' impacts, building local institutions
and leadership, enhancing civic capacity, improving social
relations and boosting state legitimacy. This paper briefly
reviews the World Bank's experience of using CDD in
conflict-affected and post-conflict areas of the East Asia
and Pacific region. The region has been at the forefront of
developing large-scale CDD programming including high
profile 'flagships' such as the Kecamatan
Development Program (KDP) in Indonesia and the Kapitbisig
Laban Sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of
Social Services (KALAHI-CIDSS) project in the Philippines.
As of the end of 2007, CDD constituted fifteen percent of
the lending portfolio in East Asia compared with ten percent
globally. Many of East Asia's CDD projects have
operated consciously or not in areas affected by protracted
violent conflict. CDD has also been used as an explicit
mechanism for post-conflict recovery in Mindanao in the
Philippines and in Timor Leste, and for conflict victim
reintegration in Aceh, Indonesia. It then looks at the
evidence on whether and how projects have achieved these
outcomes, focusing on a range of recent and current projects
in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Timor-Leste.
The analysis summarizes results, draws on comparative
evidence from other projects in the region and elsewhere,
and seeks to identify factors that explain variation in
outcomes and project performance. The paper concludes with a
short summary of what we know, what we don't, and
potential future directions for research and programming. |
|---|