Document Library

Key Text Development Assistance, Institution-Building and Social Cohesion after Civil War: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Liberia

Author: James Fearon, Macartan Humphreys, Jeremy M. Weinstein
Date: 2009
Size: 40 pages (663KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

Can brief, foreign-funded efforts to build local institutions have a positive effect on governance, cooperation and well-being? This paper from the Center for Global Development reports on a project carried out by the International Rescue Committee (IRC) in northern Liberia. This community-driven reconstruction (CDR) project attempted to build democratic, community-level institutions for making decisions about local public goods. The project was successful in increasing social cohesion, with some evidence that it reinforced democratic political attitudes and confidence in local decision-making. Evidence on improved material well-being was weak.

A society’s institutional environment is a key determinant of economic growth and poverty reduction. From this perspective, institutions that protect property rights and the rule of law are favourable. Donors are increasingly targeting resources towards good governance and strengthening local institutions. Much of this assistance comes in the form of CDR, programmes designed to promote social reconciliation and better governance at the local level. But it is largely unknown whether this assistance has positive effects, with some accounts of adverse effects.

A randomised field experiment assessed the effects of a CDR project in northern Liberia. The project aimed to build democratic, community-level institutions for making and implementing decisions about public goods. While the overall assessment was positive, there was variation across objectives:

The CDR programme had a measurable positive impact on the level of community cohesion. Communities exposed to the programme appeared better able to act collectively to improve their own welfare.
Exposure to CDR appears to have increased social inclusion in beneficiary communities, especially for marginalised groups. Individuals in CDR communities reported less social tension and exhibited greater acceptance of traditionally marginalised groups.
The CDR programme reinforced democratic values and practices, with survey evidence showing greater support for elections and participatory processes. However, baseline support for these values was high and there was no evidence the programme altered these values among the sample of town chiefs.
There was little evidence of positive improvement in material well-being related to the CDR programme. Findings on welfare showed that access to education improved significantly, but evidence for gains in livelihoods and asset holdings was weak.

These findings provide strong evidence that the CDR programme did alter patterns of social cooperation and reinforced support for democratic practices, even after the programme’s conclusion.

This is the first time a CDR evaluation has attempted to assess changes in actual behaviour in relation to community governance and cooperation, as opposed to changes in survey responses. Evidence of positive impact, and absence of negative impact, is therefore stronger than previous CDR evaluations.
Prior research suggests that small-scale, externally-driven interventions are unlikely to fundamentally change social interaction in a community, and that institution-building is a slow, indigenous process. This study suggests that patterns of social cooperation and political practices are in fact malleable. Community-driven projects have the potential to increase faith and trust in village institutions.
Observing positive effects six months after the programme’s conclusion is reassuring. But further research is needed to establish whether the beneficial impacts of CDR persist for long.

Access full text: available online

Source: Fearon J., Humphreys M., Weinstein J., 2009, 'Development Assistance, Institution-Building and Social Cohesion after Civil War: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Liberia', Working Paper 194, Center for Global Development, Washington, D.C.
Author: James Fearon , jfearon@stanford.edu
Organisation: Center for Global Development, http://www.cgdev.org