What can Institutional Analysis (IA) contribute to Community-Driven Development?

1. What can Institutional Analysis (IA) contribute toCommunity-Driven Development? Casa S. Bernardo, Rome, 3 – 4 June 2004

2. 3 broad strands of contributions 1-Determine “community-drivenness” - Institutions = ‘rules of the game’ - How do (/could) actors play the game 2-Determine how to “get institutions right” - Min. conflicts of interest (sep. of powers) - Max. use of ‘best practices’ (incl. project) 3-Determine how to build “genuine” partnership - Decentralisation/governance (strengthen civ.soc.) …responsiveness,equity,efficiency,stability, growth - Look at incentives and the political economy

3. “Strand 1” • To what extent are the rules of the game ‘CDD-friendly’ in the first place • To what extent and how can the rules be changed (entry points, leverage, etc.) • Focus on rules affecting the poor • To what extent are project procedures enabling/disabling, partnership-oriented? • New skills versus new rules: the ‘capacity-building paradigm’

4. ‘New rules’ versus ‘new skills’ (NPM) Desired outcomes: quality and accessibility of decision-making More rules Few key rules More capacity Present: not enough, unclear rules; not enough capacity

5. “Strand 2” “Getting institutions right”:innovative project organisational settings encourage CBOs to… • develop a diversified network of relationships with the world external to their community • increase their access to resources & assets • gradually assume greater responsibilities in handling their own affairs • facilitate local ‘ownership’ over goods, processes Plus: adapted, flexible mechanisms for alloca-ting resources to CBO-initiated sub-projects

6. “Strand 3” How to craft effective partnerships of CBOs & their communities with the “outside world”: • Government (local and above) - politicians, technocrats, bureaucrats • Public and private service providers • Other CBOs and unions of CBOs • Foster civil society (watchdog of ‘good go-vernance’), independent CSOs, donors, etc.

7. Enabling Agency - present: consultants, DAs (incl. assembly-men), Aces (pilot), sup-ported by VIP staff future: ACs (assembly-men),UCs, consultants CONTRACT ADVOCACY REPRESENTATION FEEDBACK Delivery Agency - present:contractors,DAs Reg. line agencies GIDA future: contractors, DAs, ACs, line agencies at Regional level (GIDA) User (Agency) – present: communities future: community CIGs (toll goods) PARTICIPATION CONTRACTS USER FOCUS VOICE CHOICE Delivery Agency 2 Delivery End User Delivery Agency 3 ‘InstitutionalTriangle’ - VIP Ghana example = lines of cleavage

8. Institutional triangle cont’d • Separation of user from delivery agency is a useful 1st step in understanding ‘participation’ • Allow debate about the nature of the relationship • Without separating the commissioning of services from the providing of services, there will be: • Little responsiveness to demand • Limited accountability to people and ‘users’ • Minimal scope for change

9. CDD can improve governance systems Linkage w/ decentralized administrations? • Clarification of relationships between the CBOs, central and local government administration Governance (‘development’) objectives? • Encouraging pluralistic systems • Focus on partnership, not hierarchy/dominance Accountability? • Who? To whom? About what? How? When? • Accountability (and participation) ‘follow money’: need IA to get local flow of funds right • Role of CBOs in the accountability system

10. Two major categories of Community-Based Organisations (CBOs) • Distinguishing public functions, goods, & services and private functions, goods, & services is important for institutional systems development CBOs with public functions such as a Village Development Committee (VDC) • CBOs with private functions, such as the many forms of Common Interest Groups (CIGs) • BUT distinction is often not clear in project formu-lation & the initial stages of implementation, when • VDCs tend to assume CIG functions • Yet, projects encourage internalizing the difference

11. What IA can do in the case of Village Development Committees (VDCs): Government authorities may see a project’s institutional arrangements as competitive and intruding on their statutory mandate • Identifies a ‘neutral’ basis for ‘technical’ discus-sions on sharing roles, responsibilities, revenues • Map and analyse VDC(-type) institutions • Helps to negotiate the respective mandates of the district a. o. levels of government above & below • and to design and/or make use of the instruments for recognizing the public utility of, and for delegating authority and resources to, CBOs that make use of public funds

12. What IA can do in the case of Common Interest Groups (CIGs): One of IFAD’s objectives is to encourage the emergence of rural prof. associations • CIGs with clear objectives, functions and action plans provide the basis for developing specific human/social capital assets at community level • Map and analyse existing CIGs • Map and analyse risk of elite capture/dominance • Understand institutional arrangements to make service providers accountable directly to clients • IA concept of ‘arena’ is useful to deconstruct service delivery (actor/stakeh. power analysis)

13. Need IA if CCD is to be sensitive to dynamic systems and contribute to their development Governance Results Existing Institu- tional context Governan- ce quality Delivery arenas Institutional context improved Produc- tion Livelihood outputs Livelihood inputs Livelihood outcome Range of Distribution Existing welfare status quality goods Welfare status improved Consumption/-version Access and services delivered Delivery Results Human Development Results

14. The role of IA in the suggested improvements in formula-tion/appraisal/implementation of CCD projects (Pantanali) • Start with the “vision” & work backwards: work out exit arrangements indicating project success • Define activities leading to build exit arrangements • Identify partners that can support those activities • Identify forces that may act against the process • Establish a dialogue with both, not just with the potential allied forces (win over opinion leaders) • Focus less on how many things are done and more on how they are done • Need less ‘experts’ & more ‘CDD artisans’, to craft empowering institutional arrangements!