The Regressive Demands of Demand-Driven Development

Despite their explicit focus on reaching the poor, many community driven development (CDD) projects have been found to be only mildly pro-poor in their funding allocations. This paper presents evidence of an explanation that has been overlooked in the CDD literature to date: the requirement that beneficiaries must apply for projects in order to receive support. The authors first examine data on the universe of project applications and funding under Tanzania's flagship CDD program, Tanzania's Social Action Fund, and then use a census of 100 program villages to examine the determinants of both program awareness and program participation at the household level. The data paint a consistent picture at both levels: wealth, access to information, and political capital are important correlates of the ability to navigate the application process successfully. The centrally dictated features of this decentralized program appear to be the most effective mechanisms in directing funds to the poor. The results suggest that unless demand-driven projects can develop ways of soliciting engagement from a broader cross-section of the population, they are unlikely to achieve truly progressive targeting.

Bibliographic Details

Main Authors:	Baird, Sarah, McIntosh, Craig, Ozler, Berk
Language:	English
Published:	2011-11-01
Subjects:	ACCESS TO INFORMATION, ACCESS TO MEDIA, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, ANTI-POVERTY, ANTIPOVERTY PROGRAM, AUDITS, BENEFICIARIES, BENEFICIARY GROUPS, CAPACITY BUILDING, CASH TRANSFERS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, CONFLICT, CONSUMPTION AGGREGATE, CONSUMPTION DATA, CORRUPTION, ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS, EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME, EXTENDED FAMILIES, FOOD INSECURE HOUSEHOLDS, FOOD-FOR-EDUCATION, GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING, HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION, HOUSEHOLD HEAD, HOUSEHOLD SIZE, HOUSEHOLD SURVEY, HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS, HOUSEHOLD WELFARE, HOUSING, HOUSING CENSUS, IMPACT EVALUATION, INCOME, INEQUALITY, INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, INTERVENTION, KINSHIP NETWORKS, LACK OF INFORMATION, MEAT, MILK, PARTICIPATION RATES, PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT, PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL, PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION, POLITICAL ECONOMY, POOR, POOR AREAS, POOR COMMUNITIES, POOR DISTRICTS, POOR HOUSEHOLDS, POOR PROVINCES, POOR VILLAGES, POORER COMMUNITIES, POORER HOUSEHOLDS, POVERTY ALLEVIATION, POVERTY HEADCOUNT INDEX, POVERTY INDICATORS, POVERTY LINE, POVERTY MAP, POVERTY MAPPING, POVERTY MAPS, POVERTY RATE, POVERTY RATES, POVERTY REDUCTION, POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAM, PRIVATE TRANSFERS, PUBLIC SPENDING, PUBLIC WORKS, PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAMS, RURAL, RURAL EMPLOYMENT, SAFETY, SAMPLE SIZE, SOCIAL ASSISTANCE, SOCIAL CAPITAL, SOCIAL FUNDS, SOCIAL PROTECTION, SOCIAL SAFETY NETS, STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT, STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS, TARGETED TRANSFERS, TARGETING, TARGETING MECHANISMS, VILLAGE FUND, VILLAGE LEVEL, VILLAGES, VULNERABLE GROUPS, VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS, Microdata Set,
Online Access:	http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/main?menuPK=64187510&pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&theSitePK=523679&menuPK=64187510&searchMenuPK=64187283&siteName=WDS&entityID=000158349_20111116163604 https://hdl.handle.net/10986/3651
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!