DOES PARTICIPATION IMPROVE DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES?
The evaluation finds significant poverty impacts, but the design of the evaluation is unclear. Survey data were collected on participant and nonparticipant households. However, the authors do not specify how this sample was created. The authors then use a matching technique as well as an instrumental variables strategy to deal with selection. They do not discuss the matching variables or indicate when they were measured. The district-level instrument is a measure of political participation through voting; it is unclear how it can deal with selection at the household level. The second instrument is ownership of a refrigerator. Use of this measure ostensibly exploits the targeting criteria of the project, but as the data come years after the project is implemented, it is unclear why household assets years after the program was implemented should satisfy the exclusion restriction. Moreover, the data suggest that program participants are more likely than nonparticipants to own a refrigerator. Finally, the evaluation says nothing about the participatory process through which projects were identified, approved, and ultimately run. A qualitative study by Marcus (2002) underscores the lack of longerterm sustainability of participatory efforts. Marcus’s study includes a desk review of three social funds and an analysis of qualitative data from beneficiary communities. The projects reviewed were implemented by Save the Children in Mali, Mongolia, and Tajikistan. The review finds that, on balance, project investments were not sustainable, particularly for the poorest, once targeted assistance in the form of school fees and food subsidies was phased out.
Participatory project investments in Mali, Mongolia, and Tajikistan were not sustainable, particularly for the poorest.
Conclusions The literature on decentralized targeting identifies a trade-off between the advantages of local information and the hazards of local capture. On balance, the evidence appears to indicate that local capture can overwhelm the benefits of local information. Project design and implementation rules also play a critical role in determining whether participatory programs are captured. Demanddriven, competitive application processes can exclude the weakest communities and exacerbate horizontal inequities. Under some conditions, co-financing requirements—which have become the sine qua non of participatory projects—can exacerbate the exclusion of the poorest
On balance, the evidence appears to indicate that local capture can overwhelm the benefits of local information. Demand-driven, competitive application processes can exclude the weakest communities and exacerbate horizontal inequities. 221