properly assessed, and making multiyear commitments to individual interventions to allow them to expand at a realistic pace.
The role of drivers in fragile states is in many respects similar
to that in other settings. Proven ideas and practical models have often been picked up in fragile states, contrary to the expectation that actors may be less responsive to recognizing and acting on the utility of promising results. Leaders undoubtedly have a role to play as drivers in supporting scaling up in fragile states, although there are dangers that must be avoided here. These include the perception that donors are picking political winners by nominating leaders, or that the survival of projects is tied too closely to the fortunes of a single leader’s political career. Donors should therefore exercise prudence in working with local champions. Finally, as might be expected, the greatest challenge to
scaling up in fragile states is the limited “spaces,” or room in which to operate effectively, that these environments provide. This is especially true for spaces that concern aspects of governance, politics, policy, and institutions. Donors, on occasion, have found success in leveraging
governance spaces at the subnational level, or away from the state entirely, in religious organizations, the private sector, or informal customary institutions. Such approaches have proven particularly effective at identifying fast-track solutions to essential service delivery and may offer sustainable solutions. However, the central development objective in fragile states is state building, so the challenge of building sustainable state structures cannot be ignored. Successful scaling up in fragile states usually depends on simultaneously securing institutional, policy, and capacity improvements. Targeting these improvements should therefore be integrated into project design. The government of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Nets
Programme (PSNP) provides a vivid example of the opportunities and challenges of achieving scale in fragile states. The PSNP was established in 2005 with the support of the UK Department for International Development and the World Bank. Its aim was to “graduate” people from food insecurity through a combination of food and cash transfers and by building community assets via associated public works schemes. The PSNP took an unusual pathway to scale. Based on a model that had proven successful in
other countries, the Ethiopian government decided on an immediate rollout at scale across 7 of the country’s 10 regions, against the advice of donors who preferred a phased approach. This decision likely reflected the strong ownership and political commitment behind the project, and the belief among Ethiopia’s leadership that this program can help stimulate rural growth. On the downside, a weakness of the PSNP is in the design of its finances. Rather than falling within the normal framework for financing public services, the PSNP operates through a specific federal grant that relies on a discretionary process that is perceived as vulnerable to abuse through patronage and regional bias.
Conclusion
Fragile states increasingly represent a central challenge for the international development community. It is tempting for aid donors to respond with small, ad hoc, and short-term interventions in these environments. However, for fragile states to succeed, donors need to work with local stakeholders in developing long-term scaling-up pathways, building systematically on what works. They must be ready to take risks and adapt to rapidly changing environments. Experience shows that this is possible and necessary.
For further reading: L. Chandy and J. Linn, “Taking Development Activities to Scale in Fragile and Low Capacity Environments.” Global Working Paper 41, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2011; A. Gelb, “How Can Donors Create Incentives for Results and Flexibility for Fragile States? A Proposal for IDA.” Working Paper 227, Washington, DC: Center for Global Development, 2010; D. Gilligan, J. Hoddinott, and A. Seyoum Taffesse, “The Impact of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme and its Linkages,” Journal of Development Studies 45 (10): 1684-1706; A. Hartmann and J. Linn, “Scaling Up: A Framework and Lessons for Development Effectiveness from Literature and Practice.” Wolfensohn Center for Development Working Paper 5, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2008; J. Manor, Aid That Works: Successful Development in Fragile States (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2007); World Bank, World Bank Group Work in Low-Income Countries under Stress: A Taskforce Report (Washington, DC: 2002); World Bank, World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development (Washington, DC: 2011).
Laurence Chandy (
lchandy@brookings.edu) is a fellow in the Global Economy and Development Program at the Brookings Institution.
www.ifpri.org
Copyright © 2012 International Food Policy Research Institute. All rights reserved. Contact
ifpri-copyright@cgiar.org for permission to republish.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47