Document Library

Key Text Making Aid Work in Fragile States: Case Studies of Effective Aid-Financed Programs

Author: World Bank
Date: 2004
Size: 95 pages (1.13 MB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

Can donors "do development" in recent post-conflict settings? Can aid achieve sustainable results in a poor governance framework? This background document for the World Bank looks at four programmes that have been successful in war-torn settings. The case studies from Timor Leste, Northern Uganda, Cambodia, and North-Western Afghanistan are assessed in terms of their poverty reduction and governance impacts.

Insecurity, poor governance, and weak institutional capacity are severe obstacles to development. In conflict and early post-conflict settings, many donors focus on relief not development. However, four case studies - the Timor Leste Health Sector Rehabilitation and Development Projects (HSRDP), Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF), Seila Programme, and Community Fora Process, Mazar-e-Sharif(CF), Afganistan, - show that it is possible for aid to achieve effective results and sustainable benefits in these conditions. Despite their wide differences, the factors contributing to the programmes success were common:

Flexible design and implementation. Goals and objectives evolved in response to changing needs. Response was quick and effective to changing political as well as developmental circumstances.
High degree of local ownership, and engagement with local government and institutions. HRSDP involved local health professionals and administrators from early design phases.
Strong programme management, with leading by example, and commitment to participatory processes.
Good diagnosis and understanding of political context, and of how conflict affects political economy and development agenda. This enabled programmes to gain necessary elite buy-in.
Capacity and institution building took place alongside implementation. This meant that implementing organisations became more inclusive, more efficient, and did not simply rebuild previous deficient systems.
Participation and/or Conflict Resolution were built in as core components.

The four programmes had significant successes in poverty alleviation, promoting good governance, and peace building. Donor obstacles to the programmes were the issues of off-budget support (NUSAF, Seila,) and reluctance to fund development in a "relief" context (CF). This implies that donors need to have some policy leeway in considering this type of project. However, there are problems related to integration into formal systems with off-budget projects when it comes to scaling up. HSDRP has different policy indicators because it is sector rehabilitation. In contrast to the community led initiatives, a weak civil society (and parliament) helped the programme because the government could produce, approve, enact and implement laws quickly. Besides supporting the factors outlined above, policy implications are:

Significant funding and resources need to be committed over time.
Bypassing central government and focussing on local institutions, with initial small funding for pilot initiatives helps mitigate corruption (Seila).
Close relationships with key political players at all levels need to be developed.

Access full text: available online

Source: World Bank, 2004, ‘Making Aid Work in Fragile States: Case Studies of Effective Aid-Financed Programs’, World Bank, Washington
Author: James Manor , james.manor@sas.ac.uk