1

Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

Article

Community Driven Development CDD) Vs Community Based Development (CBD)

For Practitioners and Development Actors

Tessema B. Woldegiorgis (Ph.D.)

January 2018

All Rights Reserved @Tessema B. Woldegiorgis, 2018

 2
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

Community Driven Development (CDD) Vs Community Based Development CBD)

Abstract

Community-driven development is derived from community-based

development (CBD) which can include a much broader range of projects. Community-

driven development (CDD) is a development initiative that provides control of the

development process, resources and decision making authority directly to groups in

the community. The “community-based development” approach may empower citizens

and improve outcomes through three mechanisms: (1) an immediate direct effect of

engaging citizens to decide how to allocate resources within the community-based

development program, (2) an indirect effect on community organization that improves

citizen engagement with other local institutions, and (3) an indirect effect on community

organization that improves representation within centralized government structures.

Key Words: Community Driven Development (CDD), Community Based Development

(CBD), empowerment, Citizen.

Introduction

Community Based Development (CBD) and its more recent variant, Community

Driven Development (CDD), are among the fastest growing concepts for channeling

development assistance in developing countries. To clarify concepts, CBD is an

umbrella term that refers to projects which actively include beneficiaries in their design

and management. CDD is a term, originally coined by the World Bank that refers to

CBD projects where communities empowered and have direct control over key project

decisions as well as the management of investment funds (Dongier et al 2003).Both

 3
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

CDD and CBD have become an important development assistance concepts for

developing nation to reduce poverty.

For example, the financial institutions, such as the World Bank's portfolio alone

approximating $7 billion development assistance were made could be a good example

for developing countries to ensure the community-driven development program (World

Bank 2004). A review on CBD of the conceptual foundations and evidence on their

effectiveness shows that projects that rely on community participation have not been

particularly effective at targeting the poor. There is some evidence that such projects

create effective community infrastructure, but not a single study establishes a causal

relationship between any outcome and participatory elements of a community-based

development project. Most such projects are dominated by elites, and both targeting and

project quality tend to be markedly worse in more unequal communities (Dayton-Johnson,

Jeff and Pranab Bardhan, 2002). A distinction between potentially “benevolent” forms of

elite domination and more pernicious types of capture is likely to be important for

understanding project dynamics and outcomes. Several qualitative studies indicate that

the sustainability of community-based initiatives depends crucially on an enabling

institutional environment, which requires government commitment, and on accountability

of leaders to their community to avoid “supply-driven demand-driven” development.

External agents strongly influence project success, but facilitators are often poorly trained,

particularly in rapidly scaled-up programs. The naive application of complex contextual

concepts like participation, social capital, and empowerment is endemic among project

implementers and contributes to poor design and implementation. The evidence suggests

that community-based and -driven development projects are best undertaken in a

 4
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

context-specific manner, with a long time horizon and with careful and well-designed

monitoring and evaluation systems (La Ferrara, Eliana, 2002).

Ownership and Decision-making Power in CDD Program

Community-Driven Development (CDD) is an approach that gives control of

development decisions and resources to community groups. Poor communities receive

funds, decide on their use, plan and execute the chosen local projects, and monitor the

provision of services that result. It improves not just incomes but also people’s

empowerment, the lack of which is a form of poverty as well. The “community-based

development” approach may empower citizens and improve outcomes ( Baldwin et al

2017).Community-Driven Development (CDD) programs operate on the principles of

transparency, participation, demand-responsiveness, greater downward accountability,

and enhanced local capacity. Experience has shown that when given clear and

transparent rules, access to information, appropriate capacity, and financial support, poor

men and women can effectively organize to identify community priorities and address

local problems by working in partnership with local governments and other supportive

institutions to build small-scale infrastructure and deliver basic services.

The World Bank portray that CDD approaches and actions are important elements

of an effective poverty-reduction and sustainable development strategy. The Bank has

supported CDD across a range of low to middle-income and conflict-affected countries to

respond to a variety of urgent needs including water supply and sanitation, rural access

roads, school and health clinic construction, nutrition programs for mothers and infants,

and support for microenterprises (World Bank, 2017).CDD operations have demonstrated

effectiveness at delivering results. In a 2005 evaluation of the Bank’s work to date in this
 5
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

area, the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group rated World Bank-financed CDD

operations completed between 1999 and 2003 as 73 percent satisfactory, just above the

72 percent average for the rest of the World Bank’s portfolio (World Bank 2009).From the

above mentioned evaluation report and experiences in developing nations, CDD

initiatives in all levels demonstrated significant positive change in the lives of poor

community. Learning from this global experiences the developing countries such as

Africa, particularly Ethiopia should initiate and implement the concept of CDD projects for

sustainable development strategy.

The Characteristics and Responsiveness of Community-Driven Development

(CDD) to Local People

The characteristics of CDD programmes are motivated by their trust in people

(Naidoo and Finn, 2001) and hence it advocates people changing their

own environment as a powerful force for development. By treating poor people as assets

and partners in the development process, studies have shown that CDD is responsive to

local demands, inclusive, and more cost-effective compared to centrally-led NGO-based

programmes. CDD can also be supported by strengthening and financing community

groups, facilitating community access to information, and promoting an enabling

environment through policy and institutional reform (Dongier, 2002).The field practitioners

at the World Bank have denoted five key characteristics of CDD projects. Based on the

World Bank perspectives, we can learn to adapt these characteristics according to our

reality.

1. A CDD operation primarily targets a community-based organization or a

 6
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

representative local council of a community. This community focus means that the

essential defining characteristic of a CDD project is that the beneficiaries or

grantees of implementations are agents of the community. Since the focus on

small communities is so large the CDD normally targets small scale subprojects in

the community.

2. In CDD operations, community- or locally based representation is responsible for

designing and planning the subprojects in a participatory manner. Since the

concentration on participatory planning is considerable in CDD operations, often

the possible types of subproject investment options are very large with only a small

list of subprojects that cannot be carried out.

3. The defining characteristic of CDD projects is that a transfer of resources to the

community occurs and control of the resources is delegated to the community. The

amount of transfer and control of resources will depend on the CDD

implementations.

4. The community is directly involved in the implementation of the subproject. Often

the participation of the community comes directly in the form of labour or funds.

However, the community may also contribute to the subproject indirectly in the

form of management and supervision of contractors or the operation and

maintenance of the infrastructure when complete.

5. An element of community-based monitoring and evaluation has become a

characteristic of CDD subprojects. Most often it is social accountability tools such

as participatory monitoring, community scorecards and grievance redress systems

which allow for the community to ensure accountability of the CDD implementation.
 7
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

What is the Difference between Community Based Development (CBD) and

Community Driven Development (CDD)?

Tanka asserted that community-driven development is derived from community-

based development (CBD) which can include a much broader range of projects. For

example, CBD projects can include everything from simple information sharing to social,

economic and political empowerment of community groups. However, CDD projects fit on

the empowerment end of CBD by actively engaging beneficiaries in the design,

management and implementation of projects. The stress on actual control of decision-

making and project resources at nearly all stages of a subproject cycle distinguishes CDD

from the previous generation of CBD projects. In this continuum of community

participation covered by CBD, new-generation CDD projects are located at the extreme

right (Tanaka, 2006).Since community-driven development has only recently diverged

from the broad community-based development there are a few contrasts visible in the five

characteristics of CDD programmes. In essence, all five properties of CDD projects exist

together only in the newer generation of CDD implementations. Nevertheless, first

attribute of community focus would apply to all CDD projects and CBD projects. In

contrast, the second characteristic of participatory planning and design and the fourth

property of community involvement are often visible among all CDD projects but very

rarely in CBD projects. Moreover, community-based monitoring and evaluation which is

the fifth aspect of CDD projects is only found in some of the newer projects. The fifth

characteristic is what positions many of the newer CDD projects in the extreme right of

the CDD cluster as diagrammatical ly demonstrated in Figure 1 below (Petr Matous

(2013).
 8
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

As mentioned above, the third characteristic of community control of resources

seems to be the key factor to conceptually distinguish between CDD and CBD projects.

However, many of the early NGOs implementing CDD projects did not always interpret

this factor rigorously (Tanaka, 2006). Thus, the distinction between CDD projects and

CBD projects with CDD components was not always clear; however, this would be

expected since there was a gradual evolution of CDD out of CBD.

To alleviate the earlier problems of over-reliance on central governments as the

main service provider, CDD programs were launched by the World Bank to improve the

accountability and services in key areas. However, NGOs quickly learned that well

designed and implemented CDD programmes had ripple effects of promoting equity and

inclusiveness, efficiency and good governance. By effectively targeting and including the

vulnerable and excluded groups, as well as allowing communities to manage and control

resources directly it was evident that CDD programs could allow poverty reduction

projects to scale up quickly. Efficiency is gained through demand responsive allocation of

resources, reduced corruption and misuse of resources, lower costs and better cost

recovery, better quality and maintenance, greater utilization of resources, and the

community‘s willingness to pay for goods and services. Good governance is promoted by

greater transparency, accountability in allocation and use of resources because the

community participates in project decision-making processes. Some of the principles of

CDD—such as participation, empowerment, accountability, and nondiscrimination—are

also worthy ends in themselves (Asian Development Bank, 2008).

Theoretical underpinning About Development as a Freedom

 9
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

Development as Freedom. Development as Freedom is a 1999 book by economist

Amartya Sen, which focuses on international development. A state of poverty will generally be

characterised by lack of at least one freedom (Sen uses the term unfreedom for lack of freedom),

including a de facto lack of political rights and choice, vulnerability to coercive relations, and exclusion

from economic choices and protections. From this, Sen concludes that real development cannot be

reduced to simply increasing basic incomes, nor to rising average per capita incomes. Rather, it

requires a package of overlapping mechanisms that progressively enable the exercise of a growing

range of freedoms. On the other hand, Sen views free markets as an essential method of achieving

freedom. His work has been criticized by those who claim that capitalism—and especially neo-

liberal capitalism—reinforce unfreedoms. I argue that ‘development as Freedom’ is not only in the

concept of international development, but, also in grassroots development program to fully involve the

citizen.

The concept of ‘development’ is ‘empowerment’ and ‘change.’ Development

project in the community could empower people and bring positive change at all levels

for the citizen. The change could be observed such as in good governance, leadership

practices, economic development and fair wealth distribution. It was as early as 1881

when T.H. Green who wrote about the maximum power for all members of human

society alike to make the best of themselves (Zakaria, 1999). However, it was not until

the 1970s with John Rawls’ book ―A Theory of Justice and in the 1990s with Amartya

Sen‘s book ―Development as Freedom where the notions of substantive freedom and

the multidimensional nature of poverty were made explicit to the multilateral development

banks. This recognition of the multidimensional nature of poverty as well as the combined

failures of both markets and governments and the socio-political complexity of ground

level realities has made it clear that relying on traditional top-down, state-led,-big

development strategies would not be effective to combat poverty. Moreover, this

 10
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

resurgence in participatory development and bottom-up approaches in the NGO

and development sector has come in only the last two decades as explained above.

CDD and CBD Experiences in developing nations

Community-Driven and Community Based Development in Ethiopia is an

emerging development theory. NGOs, local community and local government projects

and implementation strategies are hardly use the principles of CBD and CDD

philosophies at all levels in the society.The characteristics of all development

interventions are the conventional approach which is not responsive and inclusive to local

demands. Local communities are used rubber stump form of participation in instead of

involving as process owners in the development undertaking. Local government actors,

and NGOs are implementing the project and program based on donors driven agenda,

but not CDD principles to institute the bottom-up and demand driven development

approach to bring fundamental change in the lives of the poor society (Dongier et al 2003).

This approach is not only in Ethiopian, but, also in many developing countries including

Africa. On the other hand, the traditional top-down, state-led development approach, such

as the new NGOs legislation on right issues in development, the NGOs and development

actors weak strategy of bottom-up approach are critical challenges to empower the citizen

and poor society to design, manage, implement the community driven development

projects in the country. It is a high time for practitioners and actors to adapt the CDD and

CBD principles to benefit their community to impact lives (Agarwal, Bina, 2001).

Mansuri asserted that since the mid-1990s, community-driven development has

emerged as one of the fastest-growing investments by NGOs, aid organizations and

 11
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

multilateral developments banks. This continued investment in CDD has been driven

mostly by a demand from donor agencies and developing countries for large-scale,

bottom-up and demand-driven, poverty reduction subprojects that can increase the

institutional capacity of small communities for self-development ( Mansuri, 2004).The

success and scale of some CDD projects by the support of financial institutions are

especially notable. Tanaka, (2006) discussed that donors initiated , particularly

the International Development Association (IDA) at the World Bank, CDD projects have

been instrumental in harnessing the energy and capacity of communities for poverty

reduction. Since the start of this decade, IDA lending for CDD has averaged annually just

over 50 operations, for an average total of US$1.3 billion per year (International

Development Association Report, 2009). This shows that donors have strong interest to

support and initiate the CDD program for the reduction of poverty and empowerment of

the grassroots community in developing nations. Moreover, the Asian Development Bank

(ADB) has funded 57 projects worth about $2.5 billion between 2001-2007 that included

community-driven development approaches to enhance deliver of inputs and beneficiary

participation. They constituted 14% of the total loans approved by the Asian Development

Bank during this period. Over one-third of the projects were in the agriculture and natural

resources sector, followed by a smaller proportion of water supply and sanitation, waste

management, education and health projects. The projects were primarily in Southeast

Asia, South Asia, and Central and West Asia, where the developing country governments

were investing in rural development programs (Asian Development Bank, 2008).

In the last few years the International Fund for Agricultural Development has been

working with the Agence française de développement (AFD), the African Development
 12
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

Bank (AfDB), the European Union(EU), the Food and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations (FAO), the UN Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) and the World

Bank to create a platform for learning and sharing knowledge on community-driven

development (International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2010). Intensive forms of

community participation have been attempted in projects of several donors for many

years. Bilateral donors, such as the Department for International Development (DFID) of

the United Kingdom and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) or

Government of Canada Affairs, have used CDD-type approaches for a long time as part

of their sustainable livelihoods and integrated basic needs development assistance in

developing countries. The Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA)

and Danish International Development Agency have used CDD principles in the mandate

of a rights-based approach to the development projects they fund (FAO, 2010).

According to the African Development bank report, more than 80 countries have

now implemented CDD projects. The breadth and activities funded by the CDD programs

at the World Bank can be explained by providing a brief overview of a few of them. For

example, The Second National Fadama Development Project II (NFDP-II) targets the

development of small scale irrigation, especially in the low-lying alluvial floodplains or

"Fadama‖. NFDP-II increased the productivity, living standards and development capacity

of the economically active rural communities while increasing the efficiency in delivering

implementation services to an estimated four million rural beneficiary households and

raising the real incomes of households by 45 percent (African Development Bank, 2003).

For example, The Social Fund for Development in Yemen provided support 7 million

people of which 49 percent were female and generated 8,000 permanent jobs. It also
 13
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

increased the number of girls‘ schools from 502 to 554 and basic education enrollment

rates from 63 percent to 68 percent. The program focuses on helping the poor to help

themselves through providing income-generating activities and building community

infrastructure rather than making cash transfers (El-Gammal, 2004). The Social

Investment Fund Project V in Honduras benefited 2.5 million people with the

implementation of 2,888 projects (1,446 rehabilitated schools, about 700 new schools,

163 new health centers, 347 small water/sanitation systems, and 461 latrines) resulting

in all children in the targeted areas attending primary school. In addition the project

communities were provided with better access to health care assistance and access to

running water (Perez de Castillo, 1998).

Figure 1. Adapted from Asian Development Bank,

Community driven development is a subset of community based development.

 14
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

1 2 3

Consultation and
Information Sharing Community Empowerment
Collaboration
CDD

LEVEL OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

CBD

Conclusion

In conclusion, what does it mean for us as a practitioner? Both international and

local actors requires a very long term horizon. Both institutions such as the international

financial organizations, INGOs and local NGOs, and countries that take on the CBD/CDD

agenda, need to realize that changing from top- down to bottom-up development in a

manner that is effective and sensitive to local context and culture cannot be done hastily.

CBD/CDD should also not be judged hastily. Initial evaluations may well be poor. The

key is to fix the problems observed in the evaluations and work towards incremental

improvements. All this requires a new vision for development – that is long term, well

evaluated, honest, open to error, learning from error and less prone to the fashions of the
 15
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

moment. Absent these conditions, instead of “turning Development upside-down,”

CBD/CDD is likely to join the long list of discarded fads that litter the history of

Development. Therefore, one valid issue that needs to be debated is how the current

institutional culture within multilateral organizations needs to change in order for the

CBD/CDD agenda to be in their comparative advantage to so enthusiastically adopt

(Dongier et al 2003).

All scholars agree that community control of resources seems to be the key factor

to conceptually distinguish between CDD and CBD projects. However, many of the early NGOs

implementing CDD projects did not always interpret this factor rigorously (Tanaka, 2006).

Thus, the distinction between CDD projects and CBD projects with CDD components was not

always clear; however, this would be expected since there was a gradual evolution of CDD out of CBD.

To alleviate the earlier problems of overreliance on donors and central governments as the main service

provider, initiating CDD programs as a start of community program could ensure ownership, improve

the accountability and services in key development areas. However, NGOs quickly learned that well

designed and implemented CDD programmes had ripple effects of promoting equity and

inclusiveness, efficiency and good governance (The World Bank 2004). By effectively

targeting and including the vulnerable and excluded groups, as well as allowing communities to

manage and control resources directly it was evident that CDD programs could allow poverty

reduction projects to scale up quickly. Efficiency is gained through demand responsive

allocation of resources, reduced corruption and misuse of resources, lower costs and

better cost recovery, better quality and maintenance, greater utilization of resources, and the

community‘s willingness to pay for goods and services. Good governance is promoted by

greater transparency, accountability in allocation and use of resources because the

 16
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

community participates in project decision-making processes. Some of the principles of

CDD such as participation, empowerment, accountability, and nondiscrimination are also

worthy ends in themselves (Asian Development Bank, 2008).

Community-Driven and Community Based Development in developing nations,

particularly in Ethiopia is an emerging development theory. NGOs, local community and

local government projects and implementation strategies are weak to use the principles

of CBD and CDD philosophies in all levels in the society. Local communities have been

used as a rubber stump form of participation in instead of involving as process owners in

the development undertaking. Local government actors, and NGOs are implementing the

projects and programs based on conventional way or donors driven development

interventions, but not demonstrating CDD principles to institute the bottom-up and

demand driven development approach to bring fundamental change in the lives of the

poor society. This approach is not only in Ethiopian, but, also in many developing

countries including Africa. On the other hand, in Ethiopia, the traditional top-down, state-

led development approach, and the conventional way of development strategy, the new

NGOs legislation on right issues (CHSA, 2009) in development, the weak strategies of

NGOs and development actors to adapt bottom-up approach are critical challenges to

empower the citizen and poor society to design, manage, implement the community

driven development projects in the country. It is a high time for practitioners and actors to

adapt the CDD and CBD principles to benefit their community to impact lives.
 17
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

References

African Development Bank Report , (2003)

Abraham, Anita and Jean-Philippe Platteau, 2004, ‘Participatory Development : When

Culture Creeps In’, in Culture and Public Action, V.Rao and M. Walton (editors),

Stanford University Press, 2004

Agarwal, Bina, 2001, ‘Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An

Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework’, World Development, vol.

29:10. 4.

Agarwal A. and C. Gibson, 1999, Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of

Community in Natural Resource Conservation, World Development, 27, 4, 629-

650. 5.

Alderman, Harold, 2002, ‘Do Local Officials Know Something we Don’t? Decentralization

of Targetted Transfers in Albania’, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 83, Pp: 375-

404, 2002.

Asian Development Bank Report, ( 2010)

Baldwin, Kate; Karlan, Dean; Udry,Christoher;Appiah,Ernest,(2017), “Does Community-

Based Development Empower Citizens? Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation

in Ghana”, doi:10.7910/DVN/JGLOZF, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:8

HKLFlGSPX0TQpSes21QHG

Botchway, Karl, 2001, ‘Paradox of Empowerment: Reflections On A Case Study From

Northern Ghana’, World Development v. 29 no1 , pp. 135-53

Chase, Robert S. and Lynn Sherburne Benz, “Household Effects of Community

 18
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

Education and Health Initiatives: Evaluating the Impact of the Zambia Social
Fund,” mimeo, The World Bank, January 2001

Dayton-Johnson, Jeff and Pranab Bardhan, 2002, Inequality and Conservation on the

Local Commons: A Theoretical Exercise, The Economic Journal. Vol. 112, pp.577-

602

Dongier, Philip, Julie Van Domelen, Elinor Ostrom, Andrea Ryan, Wendy Wakeman,
Anthony Bebbington, Sabina Alkire, Talib Esmail, and Margatet Polski, 2003,
“Community Driven Development,” Chapter 9 in PRSP Sourcebook, Volume 1,
The World Bank.
Department for International Development , (DFID) Report, 2012

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IDA) Report, 2010)

Jyotsna Jalan and Martin Ravallion, 2003, ‘Estimating the Benefit Incidence of an Anti-

poverty Program by Propensity Score Matching’ Journal of Business and

Economic Statistics v21, n1, pp.: 19-30

Krishna, Anirudh (2002), “Global Truths and Local Realities: Traditional Institutions in a

Modern World,” mime, Duke University

La Ferrara, Eliana, 2002, ‘Inequality and Participation: Theory and Evidence from Rural

Tanzania, Journal of Public Economics, v85, n2 (August 2002): 235-73 78. Mclean,

Keith, Mondonga Mokoli, Andrea

Mansuri, (2004): The World Bank Research Observer, Volume 19, Issue 1, 1 March 2004,

Pages 1–39,https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkh012

Petr Matous (2013): The making and unmaking of community-based water supplies in

Manila, Development in Practice, Volume 23, Issue 2, 2013, p. 217-231.

Ryan, Melissa Williams, (2001) “Community Based Rural Development: Reducing Rural
 19
Community Driven Development Vs Community Based Development

Poverty From the Ground Up,” Rural Strategy Working Paper, The World Bank,

April 2001.

Sen, Amartya (2001). Development as freedom (2nd ed.). Oxford New York: Oxford

University Press. ISBN 9780192893307.

Sandbrook, Richard (December 2000). "Globalization and the limits of neoliberal..

Development doctrine". Third World Quarterly. Taylor and Francis. 21 (6): 1071–

1080. doi:10.1080/01436590020012052

Tungodden, Bertil (2001). A balanced view of development as freedom. Bergen, Norway:

Chr. Michelsen Institute (Working Paper Series). ISBN 8290584997. Pdf version.

The World Bank (2004): Research Observer, vol. 19, no. 1, The International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK 2004;

World Bank, Social Development Department, New Paths to Social Development:

Community and Global Networks in Action, Environmentally and Socially
Sustainable Development Network, The World Bank, 2000