CENTS
AND
SENSIBILITY A CASE FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF INCENTIVES TO SUSTAIN DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES
ROBYN HIGH KLAPATIUK SUPERVISED BY DR. C. APENTIIK UNDERGRADUATE HONOURS THESIS DEVELOPMENT STUDIES FACULTY OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY APRIL 2012 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF ARTS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF ARTS (HONOURS) IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
PAGE | II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to my supervisor, Dr. Caesar Apentiik, for his time, effort, and patience with me during this process. His advice and instruction has been invaluable to this project.
I would also like to thank the members so my defence committee, Dr. Edna Einsiedel and Dr. Margo Husby-Scheelar; my thesis coordinator, Dr. Dawn Johnston; and my husband, the soon-to-be-Dr. Eric Klapatiuk. Your support of me and belief in me has been unwavering throughout this project.
Finally, I am indebted to my fellow Honours students for taking the time to listen to me and provide constructive feedback as both mentors and friends.
This thesis, though only at an undergraduate level, is the beginning of a long process of discovery and a career of learning as I continue to advance my studies in the future. It is with this in mind that I dedicate this small piece of work to my husband who has been with me every step of the way and will continue to be with me as I write my next thesis acknowledgment and all future academic acknowledgments to come.
PAGE | III
ABSTRACT
In the past fifty years, significant funding has been allocated to the social, political, environmental, and economic development of deprived, underserved, or depressed regions. However, despite this investment there is evidence to suggest that financial and institutional support, while effective in implementing development aid, has done little sustain development outcomes beyond short-term results. As unsustianed development outcomes negatively impact both beneficiary populations and development institutions, enabling sustainability is critical for the success of future development initiatives. Through critical analysis of secondary research sources and case studies, this project examines the nature of development as a process of transformational change, the sustainability of change outcomes as integral to successful development, and the effective application of various forms of incentivization across multiple fields to propose a model for the introduction of incentives to enable sustainable outcomes by reducing or eliminating beneficiary opportunity cost in development aid initiatives.
PAGE | IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 6
Chapter Two: Development is Change ........................................................................................... 9
Conceptualizing Development .................................................................................................... 9
Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................................. 11
Chapter Three: Successful Change is Sustainable Change ........................................................... 28
Sustainability and Sustainment .................................................................................................. 28
The Importance of Sustaining Change ...................................................................................... 30
Challenges of Change Sustainability ......................................................................................... 33
Chapter Four: Incentives Can be Effective in Creating and Sustaining Change .......................... 40
Case Study One: Incentives in Environmental Conservation - Sustainable Fisheries .............. 41
Case Study Two: Incentives in Health Promotion - Smoking Cessation .................................. 44
Case Study Three: Incentives in Foreign Aid – Food for Education ......................................... 47
Chapter Five: Introducing Incentives to Successfully Sustain Development Outcomes .............. 53
The Incentive Model: Incentive versus Bribe ............................................................................ 53
The Incentive Model: Incentives and the Cost - Benefit Ratio ................................................. 54
The Incentive Model: Incentives and Motivation ...................................................................... 58
The Incentive Model: Incentives and Participation ................................................................... 60
The Incentive Model: Incentives and Public Awareness ........................................................... 62
The Incentive Model: Incentives and Continuance ................................................................... 64
The Incentive Model: Implementing Incentives in the Project Framework .............................. 66
Chapter Six: Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 76
References ..................................................................................................................................... 81
PAGE | 1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Development as a practice exists to improve economic, social, physical, and
environmental conditions in underserved regions. In the past fifty years of foreign aid, over two
trillion US dollars have been spent assisting developing nations with improving the quality of life
for their citizens (Williamson, 2010, p. 17); however, it is argued that this has done little to
propel recipient nations towards self-sustainability and economic prosperity (Government of
Canada Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade [Government of
Canada], 2007, p. 60; Williamson, 2010, p. 18). Unfortunately, there is a growing trend in
development where an increase in foreign aid yields a decrease in sustained outcomes and long-
term benefits for the target population (Dichter, 2003, p. 270). Considering the finite and
politically motivated nature of donor funding, this trend has the potential to negatively impact
future funding availability which would prove detrimental to both development institutions and
recipient nations.
The problem of unsustained development outcomes is multifaceted and complex.
Concerns with misaligned priorities, inappropriate interventions, political instability, donor
accountability, and poor allocation, management, and evaluation of funding have been cited by
the Government of Canada’s Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade as
some of the factors contributing to the lack of development success over the last forty years
(Government of Canada, 2007, p. 92 - 94). The Committee goes on to criticize the current
system of foreign aid as “top-heavy, slow, inflexible, and unresponsive to conditions on the
ground” (Government of Canada, 2007, p. 13). While this is a Canadian perspective on the
efficacy of Canada’s foreign policy on aid and development, the same criticisms have been
PAGE | 2 voiced in recent years by international institutions including the United Nations, World Bank,
and the International Monetary Fund of the state of global development assistance (Williamson,
2010, p. 22).
Evidence of unsustained development outcomes are abundant in the literature, costing
donors billions of dollars. In nineteen seventy-one, the Norwegian Government funded a four
billion dollar fish processing plant project on Lake Turkana, Kenya only to discover that the
local people had no history of, or interest in, fishing or eating fish, in addition to the
unsustainably high operating costs and negative environmental impact of the project on water
resources (Associated Press, 2007). The project was summarily shut down after only a few days
in operation.
Between nineteen ninety-eight and two thousand four, a multi-agency group funded the
Roll Back Malaria project in Africa intent on decreasing the occurrence of Malaria by two
thousand ten (Associated Press, 2007). Not only did the project not meet its goal, the occurrence
of malaria rose by twelve percent due, in part, to low donor funding for continued development
efforts and political constraints on both donors and recipients. By two thousand four, the project
had still failed to produce outcomes as intended (ibid.).
In two thousand three, the World Bank funded a massive pipeline development project
between Chad and Cameroon. Project funding was conditional on Chad’s agreement to
international supervision of the nation’s development (Associated Press, 2007). Upon completion
of the pipeline however, the President of Chad, Idris Deby, unilaterally redirected the oil profits
from development to the purchase of weapons and general budget expenses upon threat of
expulsion of international oil companies, despite protest from the World Bank (ibid.). With
PAGE | 3 profits redirected due to political factors, the pipeline did not yield the development results
intended (Associated Press, 2007).
Though not all instances of unsustained or unrealized development outcomes are as
extreme as the examples cited, this pattern of high donor spending and poor development
outcomes cannot continue as it negatively affects both the donors who are held accountable for
their project expenditures and the beneficiaries who must live through this cycle of trial and
failure. Beyond wasting valuable donor funds and saturating the social environment with change,
unsustained results contribute to the moral hazard issue of dependency. Dependency of
beneficiaries on foreign aid can arise from unsustained development outcomes as beneficiaries,
not seeing a long-term solution to their situation, perpetuate issues such as poverty to elicit the
continuation of foreign aid investment (Williamson, 2010, p. 25). This occurrence, referred to as
the Samaritan’s Dilemma, creates a negative feedback loop where more aid not only fails to
improve conditions, it contributes to the stagnation or worsening of the very issue it seeks to
resolve.
In has been proposed as recently as two thousand seven that ineffective development
outcomes can be combated by tightening aid-qualifying criteria such as funding initiatives that
focus on economic development rather than providing social welfare programs and providing
bilateral development aid solely to nations who are progressive in their economic and political
reform, among other criteria (Government of Canada, 2007, p. 130). While these measures may
indeed reduce the occurrence of failed interventions by funding only those interventions with a
high probability of success, they do little to address the less obvious reasons for the occurrence
PAGE | 4 of unsustained outcomes. Even the best planned intervention can fail if participants have not
bought into the initiative or found value in the outcome.
Intrinsic motivation within the beneficiary population to engage in the development
process and sustain development outcomes is integral to the success of the initiative. Motivations
of the beneficiary population to engage in development initiatives are often overlooked, or
assumed by development agencies to be benevolent (Williamson, 2010, p. 19). Despite the
social, economic, physical hardship associated with various development changes, it is often
assumed that people in developing nations should support and embrace change because it is the
right thing to do for the good of the current population and future generations to come. While
idealistically this may seem self-evident, realistically, the willingness of participants to engage in
and sustain development activities is often based in self-interest and “rent-seeking” activities
(Williamson, 2010, p. 20) rather than altruism and long-term planning. This is not to imply that
beneficiary populations are necessarily self-serving or corrupt, rather it is to emphasize that the
‘right’ choice as deemed by external actors may not always be available to national and local
participants when social, economic, or physical variables are factored in.
It is these factors that bear significant analysis when planning development initiatives and
allocating foreign aid funding for development. It is important to assess not only the benefits of
development, but also the costs of the development relative to the participants, in addition to
considering any barriers to sustaining development outcomes over the long-term that may exist.
Ultimately, foreign aid has the potential to positively affect growth and development when the
initiative and funding is combined with conditions that are conducive to successful change
(Williamson, 2010, p. 18). The right initiative, at the right time, for the right population, with the
PAGE | 5 right motivation is a recipe for the sustainment of development outcomes over the long-term.
With a trend in foreign aid planning moving towards selecting the appropriate initiative,
population, and time for intervention, effective strategies to cultivate the motivation in
beneficiary populations to engage in the development process and sustain development outcomes
require further research.
This project develops a case for the use of incentives to promote participant engagement
in the development process and for the sustainment of development outcomes through the
removal barriers that impede sustainability, in addition to proposing the ideal structure and
institutional environment for the effective introduction of incentives. The conclusions derived
from this research are intended to act as a theoretical ‘proof of concept’ for future empirical
application of the theory in development projects.
By assessing the nature of development and sustainability, the conditions that inhibit
adoption and sustainment of development outcomes, and the successful application of incentives
in similar initiatives, this thesis proposes the following three conditions necessary to support a
case for the introduction of incentives to development aid:
1. Development is change
2. Successful change is sustainable change
3. Incentives can be effective in creating and sustaining change
Through satisfactorily supporting these conditions with evidence from the literature, this thesis
aims to positively answer the question; can incentives be introduced to successfully sustain
development outcomes over the long-term?
PAGE | 6
Methodology
Secondary research methods are used in this study to determine the feasibility of the
thesis assertion and include analytic induction, discourse analysis, and case study analysis.
The method of analytic induction used in this study leverages the fundamental elements
of inductive logic. Moving from a specific premise to a general conclusion, inductive logic
proposes a conclusion based on available information but makes no assertion that the conclusion
holds true for information beyond the study, only that the conclusion is probable based on the
analysis (Bluedorn, 1995). In this thesis study, specific theories, concepts, and frameworks are
leveraged in order to synthesize a cross-disciplinary, general assertion with which a conclusion
to the research problem may be identified. Generally, inductive reasoning is especially beneficial
in cases such as this when available evidence is not exhaustive and outcomes are therefore
inferred rather than explicit (ibid.).
Analytic induction allows for the modification of concepts and their interrelationships in
the pursuit of research outcomes that most accurately represent the reality of a given situation
(Ratcliff, 1994) through a generative approach to research. Because the environment, and
therefore the context, of analysis is constantly changing, in analytic induction no analysis is ever
considered final (ibid.). This presupposition aligns with the constraints of social research,
especially those in the field of development, as context in this field continuously changes with
the changing environment. The five steps of analytic induction used for theoretical analysis in
this thesis are (Ratcliff, 1994):
1. Defining the phenomenon
2. Developing a hypothesis about the phenomenon
PAGE | 7
3. Considering a single instance to determine the validity of the hypothesis
4. Confirming or denying the hypothesis and subsequent revisions to address the
inconsistencies, if present
5. Further analyzing instances to repeatedly confirm the hypothesis
Complementing the analytic induction approach, discourse analysis of available literature
is used as a methodological approach to gain a comprehensive understanding of both the
problem to be addressed and how the selected theories relate to it. Discourse analysis as a
methodology is neither quantitative, nor qualitative, but rather a process used to identify pre-
existing assumptions, critically assess them, and enable a clearer understanding of current
interpretations of a problem while providing the basis for new ideas (University of Texas,
2011). Discourse analysis is performed prior to analytic induction in this study allowing for a
thorough understanding of each relevant theory, concept, or framework that is required to
extrapolate the final conclusion.
Integral to the analytic induction approach to research, case study analysis is chosen for
this thesis to assess situations relevant to the hypothesis, either supporting or refuting the
assertion. A detailed analysis of three relevant events will enable theoretical support for the
validity of the conclusion in a practical context. Case study analysis in this study describes and
explains complex interventions where similar methods to those addressed in the thesis have
been employed (Soy, 1997, p. 3) in order to provide further support for thesis assertions.
Utilization of these three social research methods allows for comprehensive analysis of
relevant theories on change and associated concepts and frameworks, and additionally, for the
PAGE | 8
development of a highly suggestive, if not conclusive, general theory on the introduction of
incentivized change measures as a means of achieving sustainable development outcomes.
PAGE | 9
CHAPTER TWO
DEVELOPMENT IS CHANGE
To better understand the role incentives may play in the sustainment of development
outcomes, it is important to construct a working definition of development for the purpose of this
thesis. Due to the highly subjective and dynamic nature of development, objective definition
poses a challenge.
Conceptualizing Development
Over the past twenty-five years, development has encompassed people, process, and
technology working to improve living conditions, promote health and environment, support
peace, and enable personal and social freedoms (Martens, 2006, p. 1). The way in which
development is achieved is as dynamic as the concept itself. Generally, development mixes
physical and social dynamics with economic, environmental, and political processes making the
outcomes of development activities far less predictable (United Nations Development
Programme [UNDP], 2011a, p. 13). Some applications of development are physical and action-
oriented, concerned with material wellbeing (Martens, 2006, p. 1) such as technological
advancements and infrastructural improvements. Other applications of development are social in
nature such as those concerned with the expansion of choice and the cultivation of environments
that foster creativity and freedom in accordance with needs and values (United Nations Research
Institute for Social Development [UNRISD], 2000, p. 138; UNDP, 2011a, p. 87).
At a basic level, development is arguably “the capacity of a society to move itself, in a
certain time period, between satisfactory, adaptable and viable conditions” (Martens, 2006, p. 3).
PAGE | 10 This process may include elements of both physical and social development working
independently, or in tandem, to achieve set goals; however, research in the field shows that while
development is often goal-oriented, it is rarely linear in its movement and that the goals
themselves may continuously evolve with the ever-changing physical and social landscape.
Regardless of the form or function of development, it inherently involves people
undergoing some form of change through a dynamic and unpredictable organic process of
change, the pace and direction of which development practitioners, agents, and organizations
often have little control over (UNDP, 2011a, p. 13). This change may be subjectively viewed as
good or bad, forced or voluntary, progressive or regressive both by those who induce it and those
who are impacted by it, frequently based upon the motivations to create change, the process by
which change occurs, and the outcome of the change. Objectively though, the process of change
has no positive or negative connotation – it is simply an alteration in a state of being.
Change can be categorized based on the extent of the change and whether it is affected
top-down or bottom-up. Generally, change initiatives fall into one of three categories:
developmental, transitional, or transformational (Ackerman, 1977, p. 46). Developmental change
can be either planned or emergent, often enhancing or correcting existing practices. Transitional
change is episodic, planned, and often radical in achieving a new way of being, which differs
from the existing one. Transformational change is radical, significantly alters structure, process,
or culture, and requires a shift in assumptions by those participating in the change (ibid.). It is
this final category of change into which the concept of development aid falls.
Development as transformational change encompasses the intersection of people,
including culture and norms; process, including behaviours and practices; and technology,
PAGE | 11 including the tools of daily life. It is how individuals and communities move from an old way of
doing things to a new way of doing things. It is also the manner by which “positive development
results are achieved and sustained over time” (UNDP, 2011a, p. 7). This sustainment of
outcomes is a product of transforming human behaviour, which may be effectively accomplished
through the use of key change frameworks focused on altering the motivations and actions of the
beneficiary population.
Theoretical Framework
Having established that development is, at its very core, the act of creating change in
human behaviour, it logically follows that theories of social or behavioural change are well
suited to the analysis of development practice. These change theories have been both proposed
and applied broadly across academia including such specialties as psychology, sociology, health
promotion, economics, and information technology. Laying the groundwork for the examination
of changing behaviour in the human context were researchers such as B. F. Skinner who in
nineteen thirty-eight proposed the temporal association between the brain and behaviour in the
field of psychology (Rosenstock, Strecher & Marshall, 1988, p. 176). This early association
between stimulus and behaviour in the human organism spawned decades of research across
many disciplines all focused on answering the same questions: why do we behave as we do and
how do we change?
Social Cognitive Theory
Early theorists such as N. E. Miller and J. Dollard introduced the Social Learning Theory
that in nineteen forty-one challenged behaviourist ideals, instead embracing drive reduction
PAGE | 12 principles (Pajares, 2002, p. 1). Leveraging the model of Social Learning Theory (SLT), Social
Cognitive Theory (SCT) built on the concepts of Miller and Dollard to create a more
comprehensive model for learned behaviour by accounting for the creation of novel responses
and the process of delayed-reinforced imitations – something lacking in SLT (Pajares, 2002, p.
1). Proposed by J. B. Rotter in nineteen fifty-four and refined by A. Bandura in nineteen seventy-
seven (Rosenstock, Strecher & Marshall, 1988, p. 176), SCT holds that cognitive, vicarious, self-
regulatory, and self-reflective processes are central to human behavioural evolution and change
(Pajares, 2002, p. 1). It acknowledges the social side of change by rejecting the view that social
behaviour is nothing more than a product of biology, instead embracing the influence of social
and technical innovations as new selective pressures for behaviour (Pajares, 2002, p. 2).
According to SCT, behaviour is determined by both expectancies and incentives.
Expectancies encompass environmental cues such as beliefs about the interconnectivity of
events, outcome expectations including the ability of individual’s behaviour to influence an
outcome, and self-efficacy involving an individual’s competency to perform the necessary
behaviour required to influence the outcome (Rosenstock, Strecher & Marshall, 1988, p. 176).
Building on this, SCT holds that an incentive is the value of the outcome to the individual
(Center for Disease Control [CDC], 2011, p. 214). An incentive, or reward, must be both
relevant and meaningful to the individual and result in the increased or decreased likelihood of
recurrence of a specific behaviour (University of Twente, 2002, p. 2). If by engaging in a
behaviour the individual produces a result that has value, such as the acquisition of an incentive
or reward, the individual becomes motivated to both adopt and repeat the behaviour in the future
(Pajares, 2002, p. 3). These outcomes, once filtered through notions of expectation and
perception, result in either immediate or long-term benefit to the individual (CDC, 2011, p. 214).
PAGE | 13
SCT posits that the environment, people, and behaviour are constantly influencing each
other in a process of reciprocal determinism (University of Twente, 2002, p. 1). Personal aspects
in the form of cognition, affect, and biology interact with both behaviour and environmental
stimuli to create triadic reciprocality (Pajares, 2002, p. 1). Because of the interconnected nature
of this relationship, efforts to create change can be aimed at any one of these factors, ultimately
improving cognitive or motivational processes, increasing behavioural competency, or altering
the social conditions in which people live (Pajares, 2002, p. 2). SCT looks at individuals as both
producers and products of their environment and social constructs; in this way, people interact to
create collective agency to maximize their utility and better their lives (Pajares, 2002, p. 2).
A final important element of SCT assesses the vicarious process of behavioural
transmission. Learned behaviour comes from both individual experience and through observing
the behaviour of others (Pajares, 2002, p. 3). This vicarious transmission enables the embracing
of new behaviour without the requirement of a hands-on trial and error event. It has been
demonstrated that even the observation of an incentive reinforced or motivated behaviour in
another person can stimulate the adoption of a similar behaviour in the observer (University of
Twente, 2002, p. 1).
Using Social Cognitive Theory’s model of incentives, cues, expectations, and learning, it
can be anticipated that individuals who value the perceived effects of behavioural change will try
to adopt a new behaviour as long as it increases their overall utility, poses no threat, and it can be
adequately learned by the individual either tactilely or vicariously (Rosenstock, Strecher &
Marshall, 1988, p. 176).
PAGE | 14 Learned Needs Theory
Human motivation is at the root of behavioural change. According to Achievement
theorist D. C. McClelland, this motivation is dominated by three fundamental needs:
achievement, power, and affiliation (Jelencic, 2010, p. 10). These needs are highly influenced by
a person’s environment, culture, and background resulting in different mixes of achievement,
power, and affiliation being required to achieve optimal motivation in individuals and groups
(Theory of Needs, 2008). According to McClelland, every individual has a specific mix of n-
Ach, n-Pow, and n-Affil, though one is often dominant (Jelencic, 2010, p. 10), and it is the mix
of these needs that influences a person’s motivational effectiveness (Theory of Needs, 2008).
Achievement, or n-Ach according to McClelland, is the need to achieve, excel and
succeed for its own sake (Erasmus, 1962, p. 622). People driven by n-Ach tend to embrace
surmountable, though not easy, challenges that support their desire to excel while still being
worth the effort to achieve (Theory of Needs, 2008). These individuals are goal-oriented and
success is frequently associated with the achievement of an attainable goal, rather than external
incentives or rewards. The significance of achievement-based motivation is reflected in the
demonstrable connection between high n-Ach drive and the high economic growth of societies
(Erasmus, 1962, p. 623).
The need for power, or n-Pow, characterizes the need of individuals to lead others and
make an impact (Jelencic, 2010, p. 10). n-Pow may be expressed either personally or
institutionally, with both seeking to further the objectives of the individual or the group. This
power is, in itself, motivating, regardless of the intended outcome. Personal or institutional
PAGE | 15 power may become dysfunctional in certain environments when the motivation to control others
surpasses the motivation to attain the objective (Theory of Needs, 2008).
The interpersonal component of McClelland’s motivational triad is the need for
affiliation, or the creation of relationship with others. This need, n-Affil, addresses the social
needs of individuals and groups (Jelencic, 2010, p. 10). Acceptance, conformity to norms, and
cooperation rather than competition are all characteristics of n-Affil (Theory of Needs, 2008).
While this need is beneficial to social interactions, it may hinder motivation as the need to
belong and conform outweighs the need to achieve (ibid.).
Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives
The idea of incentives or motivations influencing behaviour is not unique to Social
Cognitive Theory or Learned Needs Theory and is a common theme throughout many theories of
change. It has been posited by many change theorists that personal satisfaction is the key to
behaviour (De Young, 1985, p. 282). Building upon this hypothesis, it is conceivable that
incentives or motivators can be used to establish new norms of behaviour through increasing the
satisfaction associated with the adoption of a new behaviour (Kreps, 1997, p. 359). Research
suggests that people adhere to norms of behaviour, once established, because it is less costly to
conform than to violate the norm, adherence is personally beneficial, conformity results in better
treatment by society, and adherence is desirable (Kreps, 1997, p. 359). Desirability of adherence
creates a sustainable, novel behaviour through perpetuity of behavioural change.
The use of incentives or motivators as catalysts for behavioural change can be further
categorized into intrinsic motivators and extrinsic incentives. Research in this area is extensive
and the benefits and drawbacks of introducing either to promote behaviour change is highly
PAGE | 16 contested; however, researchers generally agree that a great deal of human behaviour can be
explained in terms of goals and rewards (De Young, 1985, p. 282; Wood & Neal, 2007, p. 844;
Rosenstock, Strecher & Marshall, 1988, p. 176). Intrinsic motivators can be defined as engaging
in an activity because the activity itself is interesting and satisfying to the individual (Moller,
Ryan, & Deci, 2006, p. 105). This type of motivation is both volitional and autonomous (ibid.).
Extrinsic incentives, or motivators, are external to the individual and are integral to some
separable benefit or consequence (Moller et al., 2006, p. 105).
Extrinsic incentives can be further classified into external regulations, introjected
regulations, and identification. External regulations are those that motivate behaviour through
reward and punishment while introjected regulations focus on self-esteem contingencies to guide
behaviour (Moller et al., 2006, p. 105). The most autonomous form of extrinsic incentive is
identification and requires the individual to identify with the importance of the behaviour and
value the outcome of behavioural change (ibid.). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivators are similarly
volitional but where extrinsic incentives require finding value in behavioural change, intrinsic
motivators rely on personal interest (Moller et al., 2006, p. 105).
Both intrinsic motivators and extrinsic incentives have been shown to be instrumental in
driving behavioural change though research suggests that the more autonomous forms of
motivation lead to greater adoption of the behaviour over time (Moller et al., 2006, p. 105).
There is evidence to support the use of extrinsic incentives to modify behaviour related to
important issues, such as environmental conservation, though the use of this model in isolation is
not without its limitations (De Young, 1985, p. 281). Controlling approaches such as coercion or
even the introduction of incentives can lose their ability to promote behavioural compliance over
PAGE | 17 time if intrinsic motivators have not been addressed (Moller et al., 2006, p. 109). To embrace
change, people must find value in the benefits of change and be personally interested in adopting
the behaviour. There is no doubt that extrinsic incentives work, but they require intrinsic
motivators for sustainability.
The Habit-Goal Interface
Logically following the framework presented thus far, it can be derived that incentives
may lead to long-term behavioural changes when habits are formed through the application of
valued intrinsic motivators and / or extrinsic incentives in the context of environmental and
social cues. Studies suggest that both social cueing and intrinsic or extrinsic motivation best
account for the formation of habitual responses to stimuli (Neal, Wood & Quinn, 2006, p. 198)
which are integral to sustainability as much of day to day life is characterized by habitual
behaviour (ibid.).
Habits are automated responses gradually learned through the repetition of past reactions
to a given stimulus (Wood & Neal, 2007, p. 843). They are unthinking routines cued by
environmental or learning associations embedded in an individual’s procedural memory (Neal,
Wood & Quinn, 2006, p. 198). Through the incremental tuning of cognitive processes, habits
require little conscious thought instead becoming an automated response to a given stimulus
(ibid.). Through the formation of new habits, behaviour changes may become ingrained in an
individual or community.
There are three widely accepted views of habit formation including direct context cueing,
unmotivated contexts, and implicit goals (Neal, Wood & Quinn, 2006, p. 199). In direct context
cueing, the power of a specific context triggers a habitual response in an individual (Wood &
PAGE | 18 Neal, 2007, p. 843) through associative learning links created in memory between the context
cue and the response (Neal, Wood & Quinn, 2006, p. 198). These cues can be created by rewards
or in direct response to a stimulus (Wood & Neal, 2007, p. 844). Once these links are formed,
even the perception of the associated context can cue the automated reaction (ibid.).
Unmotivated contexts form habits through the association of a diffuse motivational value
wherein the context, previously accompanied by a reward, stimulates the same response in the
absence of the incentive (Neal, Wood & Quinn, 2006, p. 199). Because habits are the residual of
past goal pursuits (Wood & Neal, 2007, p. 844), this reward-independent response becomes
integrated through behavioural repetition until the habit is stimulated through context, eventually
becoming a behavioural intention independent of mediation (ibid.) requiring limited
consciousness to proceed with the response (Neal, Wood & Quinn, 2006, p. 199).
Implicit goals form habits through the repeated pursuit of a specific goal, using a specific
behaviour, within a specific context (Neal, Wood & Quinn, 2006, p. 199). The association
between the goal, behaviour, and context creates a habit-goal interface that directs habit
formation through the identification of goals and allows for the inference of goals through the
formation of habits (Wood & Neal, 2007, p. 844). Goals both motivate and challenge, guiding
and regulating activities (Pajares, 2002, p. 3). These activities become habitual through the
repetition of new behaviour motivated by the development of goals, supported by rewards, and
sustained by context cues.
Transtheoretical Model of Change
Perhaps one of the most recognized general theories of behaviour change is that of the
Transtheoretical Model of change (TTM), also known as the Stages of Change Model. This
PAGE | 19 broad theory moves away from why people change their behaviour, instead focusing on how
people change their behaviour. At its most fundamental, TTM proposes five identifiable stages
that individuals move through based on their readiness to change (Center for Disease Control
[CDC], 2011, p. 213). Movement through these stages is not linear and individuals move
between the stages, often at different rates, until the final goal of a maintained behavioural
change is achieved (ibid.). The different stages of change can be distinguished by the intention to
act, whether a behaviour has been performed, and the length of time a behaviour has been
performed (Brug et al., 2005, p. 249).
The stages of change include precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and
maintenance (CDC, 2011, p. 213). A sixth stage, termination, is sometimes included in the model
but has received much less research attention to date (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p.
101). Precontemplation is the first change readiness stage that an individual moves through when
faced with a requirement for behavioural modification. In this stage, people have little intention
of taking action towards changing their behaviour potentially due to a lack of motivation, a lack
of information, a poor understanding of the consequences of maintaining their current behaviour,
or any combination of the three (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 100).
The second stage of change in the model is contemplation. In this stage, there is intention
to change behaviour within the next month. Unlike precontemplation, individuals may recognize
the benefits of the change but are still very aware of the costs (Prochaska, Redding & Evers,
2008, p. 100). Evidence from analysis of the weak and strong principles of change has concluded
that for an individual to move beyond contemplation, the benefits must generally outweigh the
costs at a ratio of two to one (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 104). Often the longest stage
PAGE | 20 of change, individuals in contemplation are often chronically stuck in the balance between the
costs and benefits of changing and suffer from a general feeling of ambivalence towards the
change initiative (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 100).
The third and fourth stages of change represent the action phases of this model. In
preparation, the third stage, individuals may have already taken steps towards implementing a
behavioural change, but more importantly, they have a plan for action within the next month
(Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 100). During the action stage, or fourth stage,
individuals have made overt, observable behaviour changes within the past six months
(Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 100). While unobservable actions are possible, they are
not recognized in this stage of the TTM (ibid.).
In the fifth stage of the model, maintenance, individuals have maintained their overt,
observable behavioural change for a minimum of six months and up to five years (Prochaska,
Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 100). Modifications to behaviour continue during this time as the
individual gains confidence in the benefits of changing (ibid.). At the culmination of 5 years of
consistent effort and maintained behavioural change, the individual finally moves into
termination, the final stage of the model. At this stage the individual has no temptation to return
to the previous behaviour, regardless of context or stimulus. The new behaviour is fully adopted
and is both habitual and autonomous (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 101).
The movement of the individual between stages in TTM is facilitated through the use of
change processes (CDC, 2011, p. 213). There are ten processes associated with the five (six)
stages of change including consciousness-raising, dramatic relief, self-reevaluation,
environmental reevaluation, self-liberation, helping relationships, counter-conditioning,
PAGE | 21 reinforcement management, stimulus control, and social liberation (Prochaska, Redding & Evers,
2008, p. 99). For the purposes of this framework, only six will be discussed.
In the precontemplation or contemplation stages of change, individuals often use
cognitive, evaluative processes such as consciousness-raising (Prochaska, Redding & Evers,
2008, p. 105) to move between the stages. This process enables an increased awareness
regarding the causation, consequences and cure of a problematic behaviour (Prochaska, Redding
& Evers, 2008, p. 101). In the preparation and action phases, the process of self-liberation is
effective in enhancing self-efficacy and promoting the belief that change is both possible and
probable (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 101). Often referred to as willpower, an
individual’s confidence that they have the ability to adhere to a new norm of behaviour in
variable, challenging contexts is instrumental in moving from preparation to action (Prochaska,
Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 99).
The maintenance phase, also the longest single phase, employs a number of processes to
facilitate movement. Reinforcement management and stimulus control both influence the
stability of an individual in this phase (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 105).
Reinforcement or contingency management increases rewards or incentives for positive
behavioural changes and decreases the reward for negative behaviours (Prochaska, Redding &
Evers, 2008, p. 101). Contingency management can take many forms including punishment,
though this has proven less effective in promoting change, contingency contract, incentives, and
group recognition (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 102). Stimulus control removes social
or environmental cues that trigger negative behaviour and instead introduces cues that promote
the positive, desired behaviour change (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 102). Finally,
PAGE | 22 though the process of social liberation does not fall within a specific phase in TTM, recognizing
the requirement to increase social opportunities or offer alternatives for change for groups that
are deprived, underserved, or depressed (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 102), to facilitate
the change process is integral to success and should be a constant consideration throughout the
stages of change.
TTM as a model for change at the individual level (CDC, 2011, p. 212) has been shown
effective in modifying behaviour in the short-term (Brug et al., 2005, p. 250). The ability for
TTM to affect change in the long-term is a source of debate and on-going research as it is
hypothesized that the targeted staged intervention approach to change in TTM evolves
behaviours, but fails to change motivations (Brug et al., 2005, p. 246). This suggests that TTM
may be more effective as part of multidimensional change initiative including motivational and
educational aspects that may help improve applicability in long-term change sustainability
(ibid.).
Opportunity Cost
Common to all theories discussed thus far is the idea of cost and benefit influencing
motivation for change including the cost - benefit of engagement, adoption, sustainment, and
perpetuating behavioural change. This cost - benefit may be relative to the individual or the
collective but either way represents a real or perceived net loss or gain. Generally, it is net loss,
rather than net gain, that has the most impact on the process of change. One of the most succinct
methods to describe the potential loss, or cost of a change, to an individual is through the use of
the economic concept of opportunity cost. The idea of opportunity cost is simple: resources, be
they material or social, are zero sum and the use of resources in one way prevents their use in
PAGE | 23 another (Palmer & Raftery, 1999, p. 1551). Ideally, the application of opportunity cost in the
field of economics allows for the comparison of interventions based on the cost-utility
effectiveness of each (ibid.).
Four key considerations may be included in the determination of opportunity cost. Firstly,
the study perspective allows for analysis of all costs and benefits relevant to the intervention
regardless of who obtains them (Palmer & Raftery, 1999, p. 1552). Secondly, the choice of
interventions allows for the cost - benefit analysis of all interventional alternatives, including “do
nothing”, allowing for the selection of the most desirable intervention based on comparison
against the “do nothing” baseline (ibid.). Thirdly, estimating the incremental cost effectiveness,
which is the ratio of change in costs to change in outcome, may prevent misinterpretations of the
actual opportunity cost (ibid). Finally, non-market resources such as time must be assessed for
their true social value and factored into the overall opportunity cost (ibid). It is this social value
that has the greatest bearing on assessing the opportunity cost of socially transformative
interventions or initiatives.
Social Marketing
Social Marketing, an interventional strategy to promote socially beneficial behaviour
change, generally combines ideologies and methodologies from mass media advertising, public
relations, and interpersonal marketing (Grier & Bryant, 2005, p. 320). Leveraging the theoretical
assertions of Exchange Theory, Social Marketing seeks to influence the voluntary behaviour of
an individual or group through the offering of reinforcing incentives (Grier & Bryant, 2005, p.
321) by employing the Four P’s of conventional marketing strategy: product, price, place and
promotion (Grier & Bryant, 2005, p. 323). To increase the applicability of this framework to
PAGE | 24 social transformation, the Four P’s have been rebranded as social proposition (product), cost
(price), accessibility (place), and communication (promotion) (Grier & Bryant, 2005, p. 333).
Because sustainable behavioural change can only be achieved with high levels of public
participation (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000, p. 544), Social Marketing works to facilitate group
acceptance, rejection, modification, abandonment, or maintenance of a specific behaviour while
addressing the social consequence of the change (Grier & Bryant, 2005, p. 321) thereby
enhancing the relevance of the program to the public and increasing the involvement of the
public in socially marketed programs.
One of the cornerstones setting Social Marketing apart from other social change
methodologies such as education or law and policy is its dedication to the creation of an
environment that is more conducive to change by enhancing the benefits of the proposed change
and minimizing the costs (Grier & Bryant, 2005, p. 326). It strives to alter the consequences of
behavioural change rather than expecting individuals or groups to make a sacrifice on society’s
behalf (ibid.). By effectively designing a program with the understanding of perceived barriers to
change, Social Marketing strategically targets obstacles preventing change adoption ultimately
resulting in more successful outcomes and change sustainability (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000, p.
546). Social Marketing has been shown most effective in interventions targeting changes that are
not directly consistent with people’s self-interest (Grier & Bryant, 2005, p. 326).
Normalization Process Theory
Building on the public engagement processes of Social Marketing, Normalization Process
Theory (NPT) focuses on the integration of socially transformative initiatives into standard
routines through the process of normalization (Murray et al., 2010, p. 1741). Specifically, NPT
PAGE | 25 works to embed complex practices within a given social context and then sustain the practice
through social integration (May & Finch, 2009, p. 538). The contextual focus of NPT is one of
the elements that set this theory apart from similar behavioural or psychological approaches to
change. Failures in change initiatives are often attributed to slow behaviour change; however,
NPT looks beyond this conventional analysis to the unpredictable socio-organizational reasons
for such failures (Murray et al., 2010, p. 1742).
Where much of change theory looks to the capacity of the individual to adapt to a new
behavioural norm, NPT focuses on the complexity of introducing new behaviours in groups or
communities (Murray et al., 2010, p. 1748) and the emergence of new practices over time
through the production and reproduction of the practice in context (May & Finch, 2009, p. 540).
The role of the individual is assessed but only in the context of how social factors work to
promote or constrain collective expressions of agency regardless of personal preference (May &
Finch, 2009, p. 538). According to NPT, human action cannot be assumed reducible to
individual factors, rather the contribution of both individual and group processes are dependent,
leading to the implementation, embedding, and integration of a change (May & Finch, 2009, p.
540). In this way, individual intention and preference are necessary, but not sufficient, to explain
collective action (May & Finch, 2009, p. 538).
NPT is operationalized through four dynamic, non-linear components and three distinct
processes. These processes consist of implementation, defined as the work; embedding, defined
as the “routinization” of practices in everyday life; and integration, defined as the sustainability
of new practices in social contexts (May & Finch, 2009, p. 538).
PAGE | 26
The four components work in tandem with the three processes to achieve behavioural
normalization and include coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflective
monitoring. Coherence, or sense-making, recognizes actors that promote or inhibit the
embedding of practices including beliefs or behaviours that define and organize objects (May &
Finch, 2009, p. 549). Cognitive participation, or engagement, looks to factors that promote or
inhibit participation within a practice (ibid.). Collective action, or the work done to enable the
implementation, identifies factors that promote or inhibit the investment of time, energy and
work in the initiative by the group or individual (Murray et al., 2010, p. 1742). Reflective
monitoring, or appraisal of the costs and benefits of the initiative, distinguishes factors that
promote or inhibit the likelihood that the initiative is perceived as advantageous by the individual
or group and that the effects of the initiative are clear to the stakeholders or beneficiaries.
Reflective monitoring also ensures that the initiative can be adapted or improved in the future
based on continued experience with the change (ibid.).
In summary, according to NPT, behaviour becomes routinely embedded in social
contexts through the individual and collective work of implementation. Implementation
processes are the expression of individuals and interactions within a specific context over time.
Implementation can be operationalized through the utilization of coherence, cognitive
participation, collective action, and reflective monitoring that promote or inhibit the embedding,
or normalization, of the practice it social context (May & Finch, 2009, p. 540). The continuation
of behaviour may require a continued investment by initiative administrators to perpetuate the
change in the future and ultimately sustain the practice in the social context (ibid.).
PAGE | 27
Together, these theories as presented will be the groundwork for analyzing the role of
incentivized change measures in socially transformative projects to promote and enhance change
sustainability. This framework offers psychological, sociological, economic, and organizational
insight into the complexity of changing behaviours and cultures, an understanding that is integral
to the field of development and the goal of sustainability.
PAGE | 28
CHAPTER THREE
SUCCESSFUL CHANGE IS SUSTAINABLE CHANGE
Critical to the analysis of development both as a discourse and as a process is an
understanding of the complex relationship between change and sustainability. They are
seemingly opposing, but necessary, forces: one being the pursuit of transformation, the other the
pursuit of stability. Change in the context of development is arguably an essential precursor to
the achievement of sustainability – we change so that we are better equipped to stay the same
into the future. The subjective value of change as positive, negative, progressive, or regressive
influences the sustainability of change. Because of this relationship, is it essential to discuss the
meaning of sustainability so that we might better understand how the process of change can be
improved to enable perpetuity of positive, progressive development outcomes.
Sustainability and Sustainment
The common definition of the term “sustainability” in the development context can be
traced to the nineteen eighty-seven Brutland Report where sustainability was stated to be
“protection of the environment for current and future generations” (UNRISD, 2000, p. 138). This
definition became the basis for both the practical and theoretical branches of development
devoted to protecting and sustaining the environmental to enable social and physical wellbeing.
Sustainability in this context is prominent in the areas of urban planning, agriculture, waste
management, and conservation (UNRISD, 2000, p. 138) and generally aims to provide for basic
needs without excessively damaging earth’s natural systems (Cernea, 1993, p. 1).
A second definition of sustainability is similar to that of environmentally based
sustainability in that it is concerned with longevity, but it is not limited to any particular area of
PAGE | 29 focus and may include social, economic, environmental, and cultural domains. This
sustainability, or sustainment, is the measure of the long-term viability of development or change
project outcomes, regardless of the nature of the project (Lyons, Smuts & Stephens, 2001, p.
1233). Sustainment separates results that have been demonstrably maintained over a period of
time from those that have ceased to remain after a project comes to an end or support is
withdrawn (UNDP, 2011a, p. 11).
This form of sustainability is the realization of project benefits – the final piece in
achieving truly transformational change. To enable sustainment, the organizations and
institutions involved in the initiative must support the creation of sustainable conditions that
allow participants to explore and realize their own potential for development in the future
(Lyons, Smuts & Stephens, 2001, p. 1237). In this way, both the material change and the social
change are perpetuated as communities and individuals are able to meet the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of subsequent generations to meet future needs (International
Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD], 2011, p. 1).
Often used interchangeably, the terms sustainment and sustainability in the context of
development are not synonymous, but are related. Sustainment can be divided into three distinct
domains comprising environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, and sociocultural
sustainability (UNRISD, 2000, p. 158). Induced development programs often address
environmental and economic sustainability in their attempt to support outcomes but often miss
the sociocultural aspect of sustainment (Cernea, 1993, p. 18) and its important relationship to
economic and environmental sustainability in achieving social transformation.
PAGE | 30
The triangular relationship of sustainment domains requires that environmental and
economic safeguards for sustainability be intrinsic to socially transformative projects both
allowing for social growth and development as well as guarding against the potentially adverse
affects of the same growth and development (Cernea, 1993, p. 20). In this way, results are
maintained over time as the context and environment changes and evolves. Because of its
encompassing nature, sustainment as the perpetuity of development outcomes will be used as the
definition of sustainability in this thesis with the ultimate goal of achieving sustainability by
supporting essential needs while balancing social organization, economic constraints, and
environmental ability over the long-term.
The Importance of Sustaining Change
The ultimate goal of change in the field of development is to create real and sustained
improvements in the lives of people, households, and communities (UNDP, 2011a, p. 9). These
changes are measured by the global institutions for development, such as the United Nation
Development Programme or World Bank, in a number of different ways. A nation’s Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) or their Human Development Index (HDI) ranking are just two of the
ways sustainable development is quantified globally, though these measurements are less than
comprehensive in their representation of sustainability. The GDP is a purely economic view of a
nation’s wellbeing, while the HDI combines factors of life expectancy, adult literacy, and GDP
per capita (UNDP, 2011b) to depict the state of a nation’s development. Neither measure
accounts for the complex intersection of social and cultural elements with economic, political,
and environmental factors as deterministic variables in creating sustained development.
PAGE | 31
Sustaining development is important for many reasons. Not only is sustainment arguably
more economically efficient than implementing repeated iterations of the same initiative, it acts
as a foundation on which future changes for the betterment of the population can be built.
Sustainable development connects time and space as decisions made today affect the practices
and wellbeing of future generations (IISD, 2011, p. 1). For development to be positive and
progressive, it is important that benefits achieved are not lost in the future and that sustained
development is both represented accurately in global measurements and supported effectively by
local, national, and global institutions.
Change and sustainability in development is a multifaceted effort. Enablement of
sustainable outcomes requires that change be embodied on multiple levels: institutional,
community, and individual (UNDP, 2011a, p. 15). Institutional sustainability requires change
buy-in on a macro level including the creation of employment opportunities, maintenance plans,
and the running and adaptation of successful programs to support the change (Lyons, Smuts &
Stephens, 2001, p. 1247). Community sustainability requires broad-based community
participation in the planning, execution and maintenance of the change, and individual
sustainability requires sustained personal development to support the change (ibid.). Ultimately,
institutional sustainability enables community self-sustainment (International Fund for
Agricultural Development [IFAD], 2009, p. 9), which enables individual sustainability through
empowerment and ownership of both the change process and outcomes (IFAD, 2009, p. 15).
This adoption of change at all levels of the societal hierarchy supports both the longevity of the
change and the continued relevance of change outcomes by promoting socially transformative
movements and continuous improvement efforts rather than isolated reactionary measures to
specific issues.
PAGE | 32
Transformational change for sustainability is a long-term process with focus on the larger
picture, though it is not the only kind of change that exists in the development context. Relief aid
can be viewed as a reactionary form of change aimed at making a short-term impact with the
future intention of creating long-term outcomes (UNDP, 2011a, p. 7). Reactionary change can
occur for a number of reasons, including poor planning and poor management of current and
future change initiatives. The need for reactionary change measures can often be in response to a
crisis. If changes that may be required for the continued sustainability of resources, livelihoods,
and various social structures have not been identified prior to reaching a critical need for them, it
is too late to manage the change, as the participants are now managing a crisis (Lorenzi & Riley,
2002, p. 201). Crisis management and reactionary change are not sustainable models of change;
however, appropriate planning for change initiatives in the field of development can help to
mitigate their occurrence and impact.
While sustainable change is the ultimate goal of development, it is not always the reality.
Many initiatives fail in their attempt to create lasting, beneficial change for communities or
populations. Because sustainable development is the end state of concurrent efforts at several
levels including global, regional, and local, failure to engage in and sustain change at any of
these levels can result in unsustained outcomes, as what may be sustainable at a national level
may not be sustainable at an international level, or community level (Martens, 2006, p. 1).
Ultimately, sustainability is a ‘big picture’ effort requiring coordination, effort, and support at all
levels.
The inability to create sustainable change can be the result of any number of deficiencies
in the planning or execution of development initiatives. Often, resources for development are
PAGE | 33 allocated according to need rather than opportunity. This creates stopgap solutions in comparison
to long-term, beneficial change, championed by participants, that aligns need with opportunity
(UNDP, 2011a, p. 93). Another common failure of sustainable change initiatives is the lack of
attention paid to the sociocultural factors associated with the change. Ignoring or inadequately
addressing these key factors can lead to the reduced sustainability of results over the long-term
(Cernea, 1993, p. 18). Ultimately, the “people” part of change – the social and cultural elements
required for successful adaptation of human behaviour – may derail even the most sound
environmental and economical initiatives if they are not considered (ibid.).
Challenges of Change Sustainability
Sustainability of change in the field of development is not a simple equation, rather it is
the culmination of many dynamic factors that must work together to perpetuate desirable
outcomes for future generations. Sustained change can be difficult to achieve due, in part, to its
complex, normative, subjective, and ambiguous nature. While sustainable change models in
development initiatives may be difficult to identify, unsustainable development is easily
recognizable, as these initiatives are often characterized by great complexity, structural
uncertainty, and apparent uncontrollability (Martens, 2006, p. 2). Despite the consideration of
sustainable change models in many initiatives, without proper planning, structure, and support,
sustainability is not always the end result (Lorenzi & Riley, 2002, p. 201).
To be successful in sustaining development outcomes, it is imperative that household and
community resilience, environmental sustainability, structural evolution of institutions,
government commitment, individual empowerment, and a sense of ownership are cultivated
PAGE | 34 (IFAD, 2009, p. 9). Current approaches to realizing sustained change in the field of development
have taken various forms. Some promote the idea of human agency to foster personal ownership
and accountability, while others address the mechanics of sustainability to enable long-term
change. Many seek to balance developments in human agency with mechanical developments for
a holistic progression in wellbeing. As an anthropocentric process, successful sustainability
requires this holistic approach combining a sound infrastructural framework with a supportive
sociocultural structure to adequately address the complex and dynamic elements required for
success.
Challenge 1: Continuance
The idea of sustainable development as a long-term process rather than an isolated, short-
term intervention is not new; however, the length of process required to achieve sustainability is
still highly debated. Transformational change in the context of development is arguably an
intergenerational phenomenon; that is, for a change to be truly sustained there must be a process
of transference from one generation to the next (Martens, 2006, p. 1). This transference includes
the transmission of knowledge, abilities, traits, behaviours, and outcomes (Lochner, 2008, p. 1)
through a process of learned behaviour via experience or observation (Pajares, 2002, p. 3) which
is integral to lifelong learning and enabling broader socially transformative processes (Kerka,
2003, p. 1).
Just as sustaining change is an intragenerational process, sustained change is an
intergenerational process. The initial generation of participants to adopt the change is subject to
the challenges of normalization and habit-forming that come with the integration of any new
behaviour into an existing social context. For this generation, the new behaviour will always be
PAGE | 35 just that: new. This potentially creates a conscious or unconscious comparison between the costs
and benefits of the old behaviour versus the new behaviour, which can ultimately sabotage the
complete integration of the behaviour as its permanence is challenged in different contexts. In
comparison, once a behaviour is adopted on a community-wide scale, there will naturally come a
generation that has grown up with the new behaviour as the norm. It is this generation that
creates permanence, or sustainment, of a change that was novel to the previous generation but is
now habitual to the current. For this generation, any change to this standard behaviour would
constitute a significant modification in habit and a new engagement in the change process.
Because development is ideally a long-term proposition that is rarely amenable to short-
term solutions (UNDP, 2011a, p. 6), the process of creating sustainable outcomes takes time,
likely longer than the conventional development project lifecycle of three to five years (UNDP,
2011a, p. 15). The formation of behaviours, norms, and social and civic structures required to
achieve sustainability at all levels can take considerable time to develop and mature, often longer
than the allocated project duration (UNRISD, 2000, p. 140; UNDP, 2011a, p. 8). It has been
suggested that transformative development results may require a project duration of at least ten
to twenty years (UNDP, 2011a, p. 11) with a potential requirement of twenty or more years of
planning prior to the implementation of any initiative (UNDP, 2011a, p. 7). Other scholars have
posited that the appropriate time period to allow for sustainability through intergenerational
transmission of behaviour is approximately twenty-five to fifty years (Martens, 2006, p. 1),
offering a new perspective on conventional change frameworks in the field of development.
While determining the precise amount of time may still be an inexact science, sustained
outcomes that are normalized in society require the full integration of a change into households
and communities, rather than the sum of the individual activities (May & Finch, 2009, p. 540;
PAGE | 36 IFAD, 2009, p. 10), necessitating long-term investment from both the participants and
development practitioners.
Challenge 2: Participation
Complementary to the theories on generational change, participation is currently one of
the most supported approaches to development for the sustainment of valuable, relevant change
outcomes into the future. Participatory development is said to increase access to services through
widespread communication over participant networks, enhance accountability through the
utilization of the more equitable local provider-beneficiary relationship, and achieve cost-
effective sustainable outcomes through an ingrained sense of beneficiary responsibility for the
project (Boesten, Mdee & Cleaver, 2011, p. 46). Participation is a consultative process that
aligns local beneficiaries, development agencies, and political institutions, which together make
decisions regarding the planning, execution, and ultimate goals of the development initiatives
(Ashley & Hussein, 2000, p. 14). This approach ideally empowers participants, promoting a
sense of ownership for both project and outcomes, ultimately enabling sustainability through
local support and adoption of change outcomes.
While participation and its reliance on community development is heralded as the most
desirable approach to modern development, it arguably fails to achieve the goal of sustained
results as a stand-alone methodology. One of the key criticisms of participation is that it does not
automatically foster an environment for change. Community and participant accountability,
transparency, and inclusivity are not consistent, demonstrable outcomes of the use of a
participatory approach to development (Boesten, Mdee & Cleaver, 2011, p. 51). While
participation is certainly valuable in giving a voice to those who must embrace and proliferate
PAGE | 37 the change, there is concern that a lack of skilled oversight may result in inefficient, ineffective,
and “patchy” service delivery that creates neither a sustainable, nor a supportive system
(Boesten, Mdee & Cleaver, 2011, p. 42).
Participatory development requires that community workers and beneficiaries become the
local agents of change, representing the needs and interests of their communities. While this
model is far more representative and less technocratic than that of an external practitioner
speaking for the needs of the target population, it makes an assumption that there is a great
amount of sameness within the community in regards to needs and motivations; however, it has
been shown that relational power and cultural dynamics within a community are as complex as
those existing in larger institutions, making the idea of a homogenous community more of an
ideal than a reality (Boesten, Mdee & Cleaver, 2011, p. 44). This supports the need for a
framework complementary to participation in order to enable sustained change over time, as the
needs and motivations of the individual may not be adequately addressed when using
participation, a community approach, as an independent model for sustainability of change.
Because a change is only as strong as its weakest link (UNDP, 2011a, p. 86), the role of the
individual in promoting long-term change cannot be overstated.
Challenge 3: Motivation
Changing the motivations that influence behaviour is one of the greatest barriers to
achieving change sustainability. As Lorenzi and Riley (2002) state in their review of change
within an organization, “It is easy to change things that nobody cares about. It becomes very
difficult when you start to change things that people do care about, or when they start to care
about the things you’re changing” (p. 201). In order to create sustained, transformational change,
PAGE | 38 the triad of attitudes, belief systems, and values that influence actions must be addressed. As a
species, humans are generally adverse to change which can create challenges in the realization of
sustained results. Many sound change initiatives have failed due to the affinity of participants for
the old way of doing things (Lorenzi & Riley, 2002, p. 202).
Changes in motivation ultimately lead to the emergence of new behaviours, which, with
prolonged adherence, creates behavioural norms and therefore sustained change (Prochaska,
Redding & Evers, 2008). The motivational needs of personal achievement, social interactions,
and individual or institutional power must be satisfied to facilitate behavioural change (Theory of
Needs, 2008). Since the actual mix of needs in individuals is unique, collectively changing the
motivations of a community or population to support the adoption of a new norm with a single
approach or strategy may prove difficult. Adding another degree of complexity, individual
motivations comprised of achievement, affiliation, and power must not only balance within the
individual, they must balance with the broader social environment to create widespread change
(Scott & Schurer, n.d., p. 4).
Challenge 4: Public Awareness
Beyond motivations for change, other significant elements can hinder the sustainability of
change initiatives. The inability of an individual or community to access information about a
change and limited understanding of the change impact on sociocultural norms, economic
viability, and livelihoods have a significant bearing on long-term sustainability (Scott & Schurer,
n.d., p. 5). Without access to relevant information, participants cannot fully understand the value
of adopting the change and the potential risks involved resulting in an uninformed population
that may understand what they are being asked to sustain, but not why they are being asked to
PAGE | 39 sustain it. Ultimately, communication is one of the foundational elements in the promotion and
sustainment of change (Grier & Bryant, 2005, p. 324). Appropriate, relevant, and timely
communication, education, and public awareness is paramount to realizing sustained outcomes
when addressed in tandem with the social proposition, cost to the individual or community, and
accessibility of the change.
PAGE | 40
CHAPTER FOUR
INCENTIVES CAN BE EFFECTIVE IN CREATING AND SUSTAINING CHANGE
Generally, incentives work by promoting changes in motivation in order to change
behaviour, regardless of the incentive’s unique form or function. While the short-term
effectiveness of incentives on behavioural modification is widely accepted, the application of
incentives for the long-term sustainment of outcomes is still debated. Incentives are arguably
useful agents of change in that they are more powerful than education, yet less restrictive than
legislation (Marteau, Ashcroft & Oliver, 2009). Different incentive structures have been applied
across a wide range of industries to promote and secure economic, social, and environmental
change. While some structures have been ineffective, others have been successful in the creation
and sustainment of long-term outcomes. It is the positive outcomes and lessons learned from
these successful initiatives that warrant careful study in proposing an incentive model for
development.
From the significant number of available case studies on initiatives that have employed
incentives to create change, the following studies have been intentionally selected from diverse
areas pertinent to the field of development to assess the efficacy of various incentive programs.
The application of incentives in environmental conservation efforts, health promotion, and
foreign aid are reviewed for their ability to create and sustain change, despite using different
approaches to incentivization.
PAGE | 41
Case Study One Incentives in Environmental Conservation: Sustainable Fisheries
Incentive strategies for environmental conservation can be found in many key ecological
domains including forest management, solid waste management and recycling, and wildlife
management. One specific area of wildlife management, fisheries management, has seen a great
deal of success from the introduction of incentives into programs to reduce overfishing and
combat depleted fish stocks. Generally part of a larger structure of rights-based participation and
institutional support, incentives have been effective in modifying the behaviour of fishers
through changing motivations thereby ensuring economic viability of fisheries into the future.
Scholars and agencies agree that since nineteen ninety, marine ecosystems have been in a
state of critical decline with approximately twenty-five percent of global fish stocks
overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion (Grafton et al., 2006, p. 700; Beddington,
Agnew & Clark, 2007, p. 1713). This significant decline in fish is the result of a “race-to-fish”
approach where fishers compete to catch a limited amount of total available fish as defined by
governments and institutions (Hilborn, Orensanz & Parma, 2005, p. 47). Research shows that
this approach promotes overcapitalization and overexploitation of the fish stocks until the
amount of fish caught is no longer sufficient to cover the costs and fishing becomes
economically unviable (Beddington, Agnew & Clark, 2007, p. 1713). Generally, unsustainable
fishing practices are agreed to be the outcome of six principle factors including inappropriate
incentives, high demand for limited resources, poverty, inadequate knowledge, ineffective
governance, and environmental factors (Grafton et al., 2006, p. 700 from Hannesson, 2002). To
effectively manage sustainable fisheries, it is imperative that these factors be addressed within
PAGE | 42 biological, social, economic, and political objectives (Beddington, Agnew & Clark, 2007, p.
1713).
The promotion of sustainable fisheries has historically been attempted through
conservation and protection strategies using government enforced marine reserves, no-take areas,
or total allowable catch initiatives (Grafton et al., 2006, p. 700; Beddington, Agnew & Clark,
2007, p. 1713). While these approaches have the potential to increase harvest through fish
migration and decrease the total catch, they have done little to provide incentives for fishers to
realize and manage the impact of over-harvesting, driving fishers in some areas to actually
increase their illegal fishing activities (Beddington, Agnew & Clark, 2007, p. 1714). These
strategies have also failed to address the issue of overcapacity of fishing relative to the stock
(Grafton et al., 2006, p. 700). Instead of limiting fishing when stocks are near or below the
biomass necessary for maximum sustainable yield, fishers increase their activities to maximize
their take while fish are still available (Beddington, Agnew & Clark, 2007, p. 1713).
In recent years, efforts to sustain fisheries have shifted focus to incentive-based
approaches rather than disincentive or regulatory approaches. This change has seen widespread
success in the reduction of fish stock depletion. There is evidence to support the positive
response of fishers to economic and rights-based incentives to promote fishery sustainability
(Beddington, Agnew & Clark, 2007, p. 1714; Hilborn, Orensanz & Parma, 2005, p. 53). Key
areas of incentive include provision of harvesting or territorial rights to fish (Grafton et al., 2006,
p. 701) and transferrable quotas in total allowable catch zones (Beddington, Agnew & Clark,
2007, p. 1714). Both these incentive-based initiatives have been deemed necessary for success in
fishery sustainability (Hilborn, Orensanz & Parma, 2005, p. 55).
PAGE | 43
Harvesting and territorial fishing rights allow fishers sustainable benefits with
enforceable rights to exclude others from these benefits. Through secure and durable harvesting,
fishers can minimize the costs of fishing while concurrently maximizing the benefits (Grafton et
al., 2006, p. 701). This structure promotes bottom-up decision making and increased
participation as fishers’ futures are directly tied to their immediate decisions about fishery
management (Grafton et al., 2006, p. 702). Transferrable quotas, or individually allocated
transferrable annual catch quotas (ITQs), alter the economic incentive of fishers by decreasing
competition through the guarantee of a certain portion of a catch relative to the fleet
(Beddington, Agnew & Clark, 2007, p. 1714). This initiative empowers the fishers to make
better decisions about where and when they catch fish ultimately increasing fish populations as
the quota share increases with the stock (ibid.).
Despite generally positive and encouraging outcomes, these incentive programs are not
without their challenges. A generic incentive offered to a group, such as harvesting or territorial
rights, assumes that the group as a whole will act in its own self-interest. This is not always the
case as the interest of individuals may not align with that of the group leading to poor overall
engagement and outcomes (Hilborn, Orensanz & Parma, 2005, p. 55). Additionally, incentives
may not always address ecosystem problems such as bycatch (catching of an unintended species)
leading to unintended environmental consequences (Beddington, Agnew & Clark, 2007, p. 1715;
Hilborn, Orensanz & Parma, 2005, p. 55); however, new incentive programs promoting release
nets and other technological solutions to bycatch have proven effective in managing this
conservation issue (Hilborn, Orensanz & Parma, 2005, p. 49).
PAGE | 44
Evidence from more than twelve fishery experiments on conservation support the
conclusion that incentives promote economic and ecological sustainability (Grafton et al., 2006,
p. 706) through increasing fishers’ interests to conserve, something critical to effective fishery
management. By increasing interest, these programs can ensure that long-term conservation is
managed by those who will directly bear the cost of overexploitation (Grafton et al., 2006, p.
701). In this way, incentive programs have increased sustainability while promoting participation
in, and ownership of, the conservation initiative and its outcomes.
Case Study Two Incentives in Health Promotion: Smoking Cessation
Incentives have been used in health promotion to target a number of behaviours that
adversely impact human health including excessive consumption of food, drugs and alcohol,
sedentary lifestyles, and to increase rates of one-time service use such as vaccine programs or to
promote follow up for abnormal pap smear results (Marteau, Ashcroft & Oliver, 2009; Volpp et
al., 2006, p. 1). The introduction of incentives into each of these programs has resulted in higher
rates of service utilization and greater adoption and sustainment of healthy behaviours. Smoking
cessation, a subset of health promotion targeting drug and alcohol related behaviours, has seen
continued success from the use of incentives to promote behavioural change.
Smoking is a global health issue impacting both the developing and developed worlds. It
is reported that within twenty-five years, smoking is expected to surpass infectious disease as the
leading cause of illness (World Resources Institute, 1999). In the United States, smoking is the
leading cause of death, responsible for four hundred and eighty-three thousand deaths per
annum, yet only three percent of smokers quit each year (Volpp et al., 2009a, p. 700; Volpp et
PAGE | 45 al., 2006, p. 12). Of the ninety-seven percent that continue to smoke, thirty percent indicate they
have no intention or desire to quit (Volpp et al., 2009b). In addition to being harmful to the
individual, smoking poses significant risk to pregnant women and children who reside in a
smoking household (ibid.). It has also been blamed for increasing health care costs and declining
stock prices for large corporations (Volpp et al., 2006, p. 13).
Habitual smoking is a complex health issue combining physiological, psychological,
social, and economic factors that make successful intervention challenging (Moffatt & Whip,
2004, p. 102). In addition to educational campaigns on the risks of smoking, incentive programs
to promote smoking cessation have grown in popularity in recent years. Historically, research
data on the efficacy of such programs reported financial incentives as successful only in short-
term behavioural change; however, these studies often had limited sample size and used small
financial incentives (Marteau, Ashcroft & Oliver, 2009; Volpp et al., 2009a, p. 707). More recent
research into the use of incentives for smoking cessation with larger groups has found that long-
term, sustainable outcomes are possible when larger financial incentives are introduced (Volpp et
al., 2006, p. 12; Volpp et al., 2009a, p. 699). Generally, participants that were offered a financial
incentive to quit smoking had higher rates of enrollment in smoking cessation programs,
completion of the program, short-term quitting, continued abstinence from smoking, and long-
term quitting up to eighteen months (Volpp et al., 2009b). Financial incentives that were found to
promote long-term, sustained behavioural change in smokers ranged from a total compensation
of one hundred dollars to seven hundred and fifty dollars. In the majority of studies, these
incentives were administered at regular intervals including program entry, six months post
quitting, and twelve months post quitting (Volpp et al., 2009a, p. 700). Smoking cessation was
PAGE | 46 verified both anecdotally and confirmed using urine testing for cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine
(Volpp et al., 2006, p. 14; Volpp et al., 2009a, p. 700).
Incentives for smoking cessation are effective at targeting several facets of the
behavioural causes of smoking including motivations and norms of behaviour. People who
smoke generally have an intrinsically motivated, cultural relationship with smoking (Moffatt &
Whip, 2004, p. 105) and while financial incentives are shown to have little impact on intrinsic
motivation, the extrinsic motivation to quit in the short-term coupled with repeated quitting
attempts and increased risk - benefit awareness offered through smoking cessation programs
likely leads to long-term abstinence (Volpp et al., 2006, p. 16; Moffatt & Whip, 2004, p. 105).
The periodic administration of financial incentives works to motivate an individual
through the critical phase of quitting as the majority of relapses occur within the first six months
(Volpp et al., 2009a, p. 708). The longer the incentives are distributed, the greater the
sustainment of healthy behaviour (Volpp et al., 2006, p. 16) with the optimal incentive duration
being longer than twelve months (Volpp et al., 2009a, p. 707). Though financial incentives may
be thought to decrease in their efficacy as the income level of participants increases, results of
one study correlating income with smoking cessation rates at nine and twelve months show
nearly equal response to a fixed financial incentive for smoking cessation in those that earn
greater than five hundred percent of the poverty level and those that earn less than two hundred
percent of the poverty level (Volpp et al., 2009a, p. 704).
Despite the cost of incentivized smoking cessation programs, it is thought to be less than
the cost of smoking to employers and the health care system (Volpp et al., 2006, p. 13). This,
coupled with the positive, sustained outcomes reported by a growing number of independent
PAGE | 47 studies on smoking cessation and incentives, suggests that offering financial incentives to
smokers for healthy behaviour change may be a consistent, effective strategy for long-term
health promotion.
Case Study Three Incentives in Foreign Aid: Food for Education
The Millennium Development Goals are put forth as a benchmark for minimum global
development standards. Achieving these goals requires the creation of new, innovative programs
to help individuals, communities, and institutions attain a better, sustainable quality of life. Two
of these goals, combating hunger and attaining universal primary education, are addressed
through Food-for-Education (FFE) programs administered by multinational agencies including
the World Food Programme, the World Bank, and UNICEF, in tandem with national
governments and local development organizations. Through critical analysis of, and
compensation for, the opportunity costs associated with food availability and access to education,
Food-for-Education programs have been successful in reducing malnutrition and increasing
school attendance in primary school aged children (Lubega Korugyendo & Benson, 2011; United
Nations Development Group [UNDG], 2011).
In many developing countries, issues of food insecurity and poverty contribute to low
educational attainment, which, in turn, arguably contribute to cyclical issues of food insecurity
and poverty in future generations (World Food Programme, 2011a). Low participation of
children in primary education is an outcome of many dynamic economic and social factors
affecting both children and their parents.
PAGE | 48
Economically, many poor households cannot afford to send their children to school due
to a lack of financial resources to cover school fees, an inability to compensate for the loss of
economic contribution by children who work either domestically, outside the home, or both
(UNDG, 2011, World Food Programme, 2011b, para. 10). Additionally, health issues secondary
to malnutrition resulting from poverty, such as increased rates of infection and low cognitive
function, may prevent both female and male children from attending school (Alderman, Gilligan
& Leher, 2008a).
Culturally, there is educational participation disparity between girls and boys. Boys may
not attend school due to labour expectations; however, low participation of girls in school is
often the result of limited gendered facilities such as separate latrines or female teachers, and can
also be attributed to health problems (World Food Programme, 2011b, para. 11); additionally,
dropout rates for girls exceed that of boys due to the expectation of girls to care for younger
siblings or work in domestic enterprise (Lubega Korugyendo & Benson, 2011). Poor households
generally invest less in the education of their children (Alderman, Gilligan & Leher, 2008a), as
the benefits of the education obtained may not result in better employment opportunities once
economic and social factors are considered (Lubega Korugyendo & Benson, 2011; Alderman,
Gilligan & Leher, 2008b, p. 4).
Food-for-Education programs seek to address the economic and social issues that impact
primary school attendance while addressing nutritional deficits within the community. FFEs
work to reduce the opportunity cost associated with sending a child to primary school by
compensating, through food ration incentives and direct transfers, the net loss of child income to
the household, be it a direct or indirect income contribution (Alderman, Gilligan & Leher, 2008b,
PAGE | 49 p. 4). The FFE program ideally decreases the overall cost of having a child in primary school to
such a level that families may change their decision regarding their children’s primary school
attendance and encourage participation (Alderman, Gilligan & Leher, 2008a). FFEs have six
main goals: alleviate hunger; improve concentration among school children and decrease class
repetition; increase primary school enrollment, retention, and completion, especially for girls;
increase attendance in primary school; redress gender imbalances; and increase progression of
students to secondary school (Lubega Korugyendo & Benson, 2011; UNDG, 2011; World Food
Programme, 2011b, para. 21).
FFE programs can either be school feeding programs (SFP), take-home ration programs
(THR), or both. SFPs provide a nutritious meal to students during the school day while THRs
provide food rations to students on a weekly basis for attending a specified percentage of school
during the week (Alderman, Gilligan & Leher, 2008a). While effective, both programs have
benefits and drawbacks. SFPs increase educational participation while addressing nutritional
deficiencies on a daily basis through offering an immediate reward of food daily for attendance
(Lubega Korugyendo & Benson, 2011). While this is important, SFPs are costly as they also
reward children who do not need an added incentive to attend school (Alderman, Gilligan &
Leher, 2008a). Additionally, as the ration is directed to the child not the parent, the decision
maker only indirectly benefits from the incentive, potentially decreasing educational
participation (Alderman, Gilligan & Leher, 2008b, p. 3).
THRs also address nutritional deficiency and educational participation, though the
incentive for attendance is weekly, not daily, resulting in children having different access to food
than those in SFPs (Alderman, Gilligan & Leher, 2008b, p. 3). THRs have been both criticized
PAGE | 50 and commended for allocation of the reward to the family rather than the child. Because the
weekly ration is sent home, parents or caregivers are free to redistribute the food as they see fit
(ibid.). This can result in less available food for the child; however, supporters of THR recognize
that take-home rations have the ability to benefit the most vulnerable populations: children under
two and their mothers (Lubega Korugyendo & Benson, 2011). In this way, THRs can reach
beyond the individual and benefit the whole family. Additionally, THR programs directly benefit
those responsible for sending children to school, potentially increasing child participation in
primary education.
Studies show that FFE programs are successful in alleviating hunger and improving
nutrition by offering incentives by way of supplementing inadequate diets (Alderman, Gilligan &
Leher, 2008b, p. 25), though it has been found that the composition of the food rations is
important to overall program adoption (UNDG, 2011). In many regions, children and families
will not accept non-traditional foods thereby decreasing the effectiveness of the program if these
cultural considerations are not taken into account (ibid.). Through SFP and THR incentive
programs, FFE has been found to improve the daily energy consumption of undernourished
children. Studies on the effectiveness of FFE on nutrition and hunger have reported gains in
children’s height, weight, body mass index, and body composition through iron, protein, and
vitamin supplemented diets (Alderman, Gilligan & Leher, 2008a).
Proper and adequate nutrition is vital to cognitive function, improving concentration and
decreasing class repetition. Teachers from a number of World Food Programme FFE schools
ranked the importance of food rations on children’s ability to concentrate and learn as ranging
from significant to very highly significant (UNDG, 2011). Two studies on the effect of FFE on
PAGE | 51 learning achievement found that test scores improved for children who participated in SFPs or
THRs through increased school attendance and better learning efficiency (Alderman, Gilligan &
Leher, 2008a) while the International Food Policy Research Institute found FFE programs
reduced class repetition by almost a quarter for boys and almost a tenth for girls (Lubega
Korugyendo & Benson, 2011).
Increased primary school attendance, enrollment, retention, and completion has been
found to positively correlate with FFE programs, with reported enrollment increases of between
four and five percent in comparison to enrollment where no FFE is offered (Lubega Korugyendo
& Benson, 2011). FFE has also been found to decrease the age of enrollment into primary school
(Alderman, Gilligan & Leher, 2008b, p. 22) and increase attendance (UNDG, 2011). The ability
of FFE programs to increase student retention, completion, and to promote the progression of
students to secondary school has not been concluded and requires further study. One reason for
this may be that at present, incentives from FFE do not extend to secondary school resulting in
low rates of matriculation and a prolonged enrollment in primary school enabling beneficiaries to
continue receiving food rations (Lubega Korugyendo & Benson, 2011).
Perhaps one of the most impressive results of FFE intervention is the redress of gender
imbalances in primary school enrollment and attendance. FFE programs have been found to
reduce the age of enrollment in primary school for girls (Alderman, Gilligan & Leher, 2008b, p.
25) and increase retention through the introduction of special incentives for female attendance at
school (World Food Programme, 2011b, para. 25). Generally, it is agreed that FFE contributes to
a reduction in the gender gap by offering incentives in the form of compensation for opportunity
costs that act as barriers to female primary school attendance.
PAGE | 52
As expected, incentive-based FFEs are more successful in areas where school
participation is low or nutritional deficiencies are high (Alderman, Gilligan & Leher, 2008a) as
the opportunity cost is greater for these families. All studies reviewed concluded that
incentivized Food-for-Education programs increase primary school participation while
addressing the nutritional needs of vulnerable populations. Through partnerships with
government institutions, FFE enables development and sustainable outcomes for future
generations by breaking the cycle of poverty, increasing access to education, and narrowing the
gender gap.
The future of FFE as an effective, sustainable intervention is unclear. Ideally, benefits
from FFE programs are seen immediately in the improved nutrition and educational attainment
of children in the program and over the long-term in subsequent generations when the increased
attendance of children in school results in greater employment and income generation
opportunities upon reaching adulthood thereby breaking the cycle of poverty (World Food
Programme, 2011a). However, critics question the ability of the intervention to promote
outcomes that are sustained beyond the duration of primary schooling if incentives are not
extended to include secondary education (Lubega Korugyendo & Benson, 2011).
Currently, there is a lack of research on the long-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness of
FFE programs (Alderman, Gilligan & Leher, 2008a). Seeing that FFE is undoubtedly costly,
with a single project costing the World Food Programme nearly five million US dollars over four
years in rural Djibouti (World Food Programme, 2011b, p. 13), more long-term studies on the
impact and outcomes of FFE are required to confirm FFE as a sustainable solution to hunger and
poverty.
PAGE | 53
CHAPTER FIVE
INTRODUCING INCENTIVES TO SUCCESSFULLY SUSTAIN DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES
As discussed in the preceding chapter, incentives have been effectively used to promote
and sustain change in a number of different industries, across a number of different objectives.
These incentives take on many forms, including monetary and resource-based, but all rely on the
same principle: the motivation for the individual, community, or population to change must
outweigh the motivation to stay the same. Evidence from the previous case studies supports the
use of incentives for the achievement of long-term change; however, it is important to
understand the applicability of this model to the field of development. Leveraging the empirical
and theoretical best practice in the use of incentives for behavioural change discussed in previous
chapters, this thesis proposes the following theoretical model of incentivization to sustain long-
term outcomes in the field of development.
The Incentive Model: Incentive versus Bribe
Proposing the introduction of incentives into development initiatives draws heavy
criticism in the literature from those who view incentivization as coercive, technocratic, and non-
participatory. While this may be true of some incentive models, there is an important distinction
to be made between incentive and bribe; the former being a tool of empowerment and the latter
being a tool of control.
This thesis posits that bribery differs from incentives by leveraging existing inequalities
between incentive administrators and the target population to implement desirable change as
determined by those in a position of power. Bribery is a coercive and opportunistic act that takes
PAGE | 54 advantage of an existing paucity of currency. Currency may take many forms including, but not
limited to, money, time, and food. Without a pre-existing deficit of currency, bribery is
impossible without further coercion. The briber finds this deficit advantageous in the fact that it
may be exploited for personal or institutional gain. Bribery effectively purchases behavioural
change for technocratically determined outcomes without addressing the complex social,
economic, and political needs required for long-term sustainability. Bribery disempowers those
that receive the bribe by compelling them to conform to a change that may be contrary to their
efforts, abilities, or values.
In comparison, rather than taking advantage of a currency deficit, the incentive
administrator recognizes an inequality or deficit and attempts to redress it by providing the
individual, community, or population with a means to minimize future inequality and deficit
through mitigation of the current one. That is, when implementing change in order to address a
paucity of a given resource through the dispensation of food, money, or any other currency, the
incentive mitigates the current lack of the resource in question and minimizes the cost of the
desired change without coercing the target audience into adopting something that is not likeable
or ultimately beneficial to them in the long-term. Although both the incentive and the bribe use
similar methodologies to achieve a goal, the bribe is coercive and takes advantage of inequality
while the incentive attempts to redress it.
The Incentive Model: Incentives and the Cost - Benefit Ratio
The proposed incentive model works on the foundational elements of opportunity cost,
self-efficacy, and empowerment. All change, regardless of scope, is associated with some cost,
PAGE | 55 be it real or perceived, to the individual, community, or population. This cost is often referred to
as opportunity cost and is the net deficit, or cost, of the change relative to the norm (Scott &
Schurer, n.d., p. 5). This thesis argues that for change to be successfully adopted and sustained,
this deficit must be compensated. Compensation of the opportunity cost moves the cost - benefit
ratio in favour of the change by decreasing or eliminating the cost relative to the benefit. In this
way, change becomes feasible as it costs less to engage in change and more benefit is ultimately
derived. It is important to note, however, that the opportunity cost incurred must be quantifiable
in some form of monetary or social currency for the incentive model to be applicable as an
opportunity cost that is qualitative in nature, such as those resulting from a change in culture or
tradition, may be difficult to appropriately compensate without the incentive taking the form of
bribery or reward.
To enhance sustainability and avoid coercive measures, it is important that the scale of
cost and benefit not tip in favour of change due to administration of an incentive: the incentive
cannot exceed the opportunity cost. Incentives must be introduced only to compensate for the
opportunity cost deficit in such a way that they correlate to the individual opportunity costs
incurred. This compensation has the ability to bring the net cost of the change to zero sum,
allowing the value of the initiative, and not the incentive, to be the driving force for change. In
this way, incentives remove barriers to change that might otherwise impede a supportive
population yet never coercively reward participants for adopting new behaviour. Compensation
for opportunity cost does not extend to deficits that are not induced by the change.
This structure of incentivization results in the individual, community, or population being
in a situation no better, though no worse, than that of maintaining current the status quo while
PAGE | 56 creating a supportive foundation on which to introduce development initiatives that will
ultimately prove beneficial. Ideally, once outcomes have been achieved, the opportunity cost
should be zero and change should be self-sustaining.
The difficulty of change, regardless of the context, process, cost, or benefit is due, in part,
to the expected benefits of the change, or the pay off, occurring at some point in the future,
though the effort and cost of the change occurs in the present (Scott & Schurer, n.d., p. 5). The
introduction of incentives helps mitigate this ‘pay now, buy later’ structure by providing some
compensation for costs incurred during the change process. Incentivization has the added ability
to sustain interest in the initiative and focus on the eventual benefits throughout the continuum of
the change. While benefits may not be immediately realized, they will not be completely
forgotten in the burden of costs with the continued support of incentives.
The creation of an environment conductive to change can be achieved through enhancing
the benefits of change and minimizing the costs (Grier & Bryant, 2005, p. 326). Leveraging the
model of Social Marketing, it follows that individuals should not be expected to make a sacrifice
on society’s behalf to create change and that instead, obstacles that prevent or inhibit change
should be addressed (ibid.). Incentives that target opportunity cost support this model of change
by compensating for the induced deficit rather than asking society to shoulder an additional
burden for the sake of a future benefit they may or may not fully understand.
The selection of the specific incentive offered to promote and sustain a given change
should correlate directly to the individual, community, or population opportunity cost. Research
shows that effective incentives are generally large or individualized (Scott & Schurer, n.d., p. 7).
While incentives that reduce or eliminate opportunity cost need not be larger than the cost
PAGE | 57 incurred, they should be in response to the unique cost incurred by an individual or group.
Because the opportunity cost of the larger population may not be representative of the individual,
change can fail if the needs of both the individual and the group are not addressed.
Examples of incentives appropriate for the reduction or elimination of opportunity cost
include conservation agreements and social benefits such as health, education, transportation, or
food (Niesten & Gjertsen, 2010, p. 2). Historically, monetary transfers have been used to speed
up the pace of development but their application is inherently unsustainable (Cerna, 1993, p. 20).
In the incentive model, monetary incentives, including direct cash transfers, may be used as
incentive when the opportunity cost is fiscal in nature; however, this form of currency has an
increased potential to become a bribe when compared to the currency of social benefits
(UNRISD, 2000, p. 159). Money is a powerful motivator, especially in regions of poverty, and
because of this should be the last type of incentive used to compensate opportunity cost.
Through the reduction or elimination of opportunity cost, incentives have the ability to
empower participant groups to adopt a change that might otherwise be unavailable to them.
Empowerment may be through the removal of barriers that make change difficult or the
enhancement of capacity, which increases the competency or ability of a target population to
achieve change. Enhancement of self-efficacy through empowerment helps promote new norms
and sustainable change by making a desirable change attainable (Cernea, 1993, p. 24). Change
that is coercive does not support the growth of empowerment and self-efficacy and thereby fails
to create continuous change beyond a limited time (Cernea, 1993, p. 20).
Ultimately, incentives to reduce opportunity cost and redress the cost - benefit ratio of
change have the ability to enable the self-regulatory and self-reflective processes that, according
PAGE | 58 to SCT, are integral to long-term change (Pajares, 2002, p. 1). Incentivization to compensate for
the opportunity cost of change allows participants to self-regulate both the adoption and the pace
of change and, additionally, allows participants the chance to assess the long-term benefits of the
change rather than being distracted by the immediate costs. This self-reflective process ensures
that the value of the initiative is always the driving force behind change. Ultimately, these
incentives empower people through self-efficacy and the elimination of opportunity cost to
engage in change on their own terms rather than at a disadvantage.
The Incentive Model: Incentives and Motivation
Effective motivation for change is a delicate balance of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
incentives. Arguably, achieving this ideal balance can promote sustained change over time,
despite modifications to the physical and socio-political environment. While the literature is
divided on the ability of extrinsic incentives to promote intrinsic motivation, this thesis argues
that in addition to acting as an extrinsic motivator for action, incentives introduced to reduce or
eliminate opportunity cost act to promote intrinsic motivation for long-term attitudinal change.
Because incentives can enable self-efficacy through the removal of costs that may hinder
a participants ability to succeed in change (Moller et al., 2006, p. 105), intrinsic motivation in the
form of McClelland’s n-Ach can be fulfilled. Change participants in the proposed incentive
model do not engage in change for the benefit of the incentive, rather it is the ability of the
participant to successfully realize the intended outcomes of the change through the removal of
barriers that satisfies the n-Ach need to achieve attainable goals and succeed for the sake of
success rather than for the promise of an external reward (Erasmus, 1962, p. 622).
PAGE | 59
The need for power may be satisfied in low n-pow participants with the application of
incentives to reduce or eliminate opportunity cost through the creation of a culture of
empowerment, or self-reflection. These more cooperative and participatory individuals (House &
Howell, 1992, p. 95) may achieve motivation through the increased control they are provided
with over their own lives and the way in which they engage with change as change participants
no longer shoulder the burden associated with change. Change participants that successfully
realize change outcomes also have the ability to positively act as agents of change and influence
the actions of others.
The motivational need for power (Jelencic, 2010, p. 10) may be fulfilled in both a
coercive structure and an incentive structure, depending on the nature of the individual. High n-
pow persons will naturally gravitate towards hierarchical power structures that allow them to
exert social influence through manipulation and coercion (House & Howell, 1992, p. 90) and
while this is not the intended structure for incentivization, top-down, coercive, or bribing change
efforts may attract this type of participant. Since the need for power can be stimulated in power-
structured environment (House & Howell, 1992, p. 95), initiatives employing incentivization
should be cognizant of the presence of these individual in a leadership role within the participant
group and the potential for these individuals to misuse the incentives for personal gain.
Finally, because change is both a micro and macro process, the motivation of an
individual to change affects the motivation of the group as change is only as strong as its weakest
link (UNDP, 2011a, p. 86). The incentivized change model is a means to support change
participants individually while allowing them to approach and manage change collectively. The
incentives discussed continue to rely on community engagement and participation for the
realization of successful outcomes. While not specifically fulfilling the need for affiliation which
PAGE | 60 completes McClelland’s triad of motivation (Jelencic, 2010, p. 10), incentives can support
community change efforts that foster the development of relationships through the unification of
individuals over a common goal.
Because change participation is not coerced through bribery or reward in the proposed
model, the motivation for change becomes volitional, and therefore intrinsic. Leveraging the
Habit-goal Interface theory, this intrinsically motivated goal works in tandem with incentivized
behavioural change within the social context to enable sustained change (Wood & Neal, 2007, p.
844). The intrinsic value of the change is important to the success of the initiative as even non-
coercive incentives can lose their ability to promote adherence to change if the intrinsic
motivation has not been developed (Moller et al., 2006, p. 109). For positive change to be
affected, motivation must come externally through the removal of barriers to change and
internally through the recognition of the inherent value of change outcomes relative to the
individual.
The Incentive Model: Incentives and Participation
As previously discussed, the realization of sustained development outcomes relies on the
intersection of people, process, and technology. To achieve anthropocentric development as
complimentary to process and technology, it is imperative that development initiatives are
responsive to local needs and concerns and that they collaborate closely with communities and
the beneficiary population (UNRISD, 2000, p. 138). While not necessarily an outcome of
incentivization, this highly participatory framework both supports, and is supported by, the
introduction of incentives to reduce or eliminate opportunity cost enabling long-term change.
PAGE | 61
The proposed incentive model requires a structured, highly participatory framework for
success. The effective use of incentives to remove barriers to change is dependent on
participatory planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of initiatives. Because
incentives do not create a reward for engaging in change, both the initiative and the intended
outcomes must be the driving motivation for change within the beneficiary population. To ensure
this, not only must the target population participate in the change process, they must determine
the nature of the change through individual and community valuation.
Responsibility for change in an incentivized, participatory structure should be shared
between public, private, and community interests. Development agencies and institutions
become accountable to support the change initiative as determined by local and national actors.
In this way, the introduction of incentives is prevented from becoming technocratic in nature
with the incentive instead being offered as a tool of assistance to promote bottom-up, community
driven change rather than a tool of top-down, institutionally driven control.
Participants not only set priorities for change, they identify the opportunity cost associated
with the change, direct the process and pace of change implementation, and assume ownership of
monitoring and evaluating change outcomes. In this structure, the role of development agencies
and institutions becomes one of supporting cast rather than change agent. This is not to say that
international partners are not required, only that are less significant than national actors as
development agencies aspire to influence and support local or national processes, rather than lead
them (UNDP, 2011a, p. 9). The goal of introducing incentives to enable sustained change is not
to empower the development institution, but to empower the participants through the realization
of individual rights and abilities, enabling them greater control over their livelihoods. Ultimately,
PAGE | 62 the introduction of incentives will work to promote independence of the community from
external agents in its affairs.
It is important to note that although this thesis posits that the introduction of incentives into
a participatory development framework may promote sustainable outcomes, neither
participation, nor incentives, necessarily create a motivation for change unless it has already
been cultivated. An incentive model that reduces or eliminates opportunity cost only removes
barriers to change – it does not automatically improve inclusion or participation in the change
process. Incentives can be introduced as a tool into community-based, participatory development
to support initiatives but they cannot take the place of effective planning and execution of
change.
The Incentive Model: Incentives and Public Awareness
Unsustainable development outcomes may be the result of a lack of resources to create and
sustain change, preference for the old way of being over the new, or poor information about the
change and the associated impacts (Scott & Schurer, n.d., p. 6). The proposed model of
incentivization seeks to address a paucity of resources and disparity of preference through the
reduction or elimination of opportunity cost and the cultivation of intrinsic motivators; however,
neither of these address the issue of poor or lacking information as a barrier to change. This
thesis argues that while effective, incentives are not a comprehensive solution to issues of
sustainability without public education and awareness campaigns.
To effectively engage in change, the target population must understand the initiative,
including the goals and benefits of the change, as well as understand the roles and
PAGE | 63 responsibilities of the individual in the change process. TTM recognizes the importance of this
type of cognition and personal evaluation in achieving successful change and suggests that
increased public education on change causation, consequences, and cure can positively influence
the change process and aid in the perpetuity of desired behaviours into the future (Prochaska,
Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 101). It is essential that the importance and relevance of the initiative
be communicated to the public, as knowledge has the ability to increase public involvement
(McKenzie-Mohr, 2000, p. 543). Ultimately, an integrated approach that includes meaningful
communication of the initiative, in addition to the removal of barriers through the reduction or
elimination of opportunity cost, is needed to support sustainable development (Martens, 2006, p.
1).
The application of incentives as isolated change strategies has shown limited success in
sustaining change over the long-term; however, in conjunction with educational measures, these
incentives are often more successful in changing complex behaviours (Scott & Schurer, n.d., p.
10). The proposed incentive model requires partnership with public awareness and education to
promote individual understanding of the contextual relevance of the change. The model
recognizes that despite the removal of barriers, it can be difficult to make someone fully engage
in something they do not comprehensively understand. Therefore, incentivized change is to be
promoted with adequate education resulting in a genuine expression of intrinsic motivation rather
than an artificial result of extrinsic incentives or benefits.
As evidenced by a number of studies on extrinsic and intrinsic motivators, extrinsic
motivation alone may create change in the short-term but does not sustain it over time (Moller et
al., 2006, p. 105). In comparison, campaigns that educate the public on the motivating factors,
PAGE | 64 relevance, and cost - benefit of change arguably promote a culture of empowerment and agency
that can both drive and support sustainability into the future. Aligning these two strategies to
optimize outcomes, awareness and education must be included as part of incentivized initiatives
to facilitate group acceptance, rejection, and maintenance of change. Public awareness and
educational content that includes the Social Marketing “P’s” (Grier & Bryant, 2005, p. 321) of
social proposition (product), cost (price), and accessibility (place) of the change (Grier & Bryant,
2005, p. 333) will ultimately achieve participation on a larger scale than with the introduction of
an incentive alone.
The Incentive Model: Incentives and Continuance
Incentives only promote sustained development outcomes if they aid in the continuance
of a change. A successful incentive model will connect space and time by supporting processes
of behavioural transmission both intragenerationally and intergenerationally. In this way,
transformational change may occur, permanently altering social, economic, or physical ways of
being beyond the scope of the individual change participants.
Because learned behaviour in the form of intergenerational transmission comes from the
individual experience and observational experience of the desired behaviour in others (Pajares,
2002, p. 3), this learning experience combined with the motivation of achievement enabled by
the reduction or elimination of opportunity cost can potentially increase adherence to new
behaviour throughout the participant’s life, thereby perpetuating the sustainment of change
outcomes. Incentivization helps promote participation in the change process; through the
PAGE | 65 removal of barriers to change, participants are able to learn and adopt new behaviours while
being supported by the incentive and the project structure.
Since observational experience, or vicarious transmission, allows for the continuance of
change to extend beyond the initiative participants within a generation, then observation of not
only a behaviour, but of the administration of incentives in the proposed model can promote the
adoption of change beyond the target population (University of Twente, 2002, p. 1). Leveraging
Social Cognitive Theory’s idea of vicarious transmission and the Habit-Goal Interface, the
incentive model has a diffuse motivational value where the absence of the incentive will still
promote change (Neal, Wood & Quinn, 2006, p. 199). Ultimately, the introduction of incentives
to remove barriers to change may perpetuate the change in the broader context without adding
significant costs to the initiative.
The incentive model enables intergenerational transmission of behavioural through
support of knowledge transfer from one generation to another. This type of transmission is
integral to lifelong learning, sustainment of change outcomes, and broader social purposes
(Kerka, 2003, p. 1). Intergenerational transmission transfers abilities, traits, behaviours, and
outcomes from parents to children (Lochner, 2008, p. 1) through direct and observational
experience. Incentives that reduce or eliminate opportunity cost enable the adoption of change in
the parent generation through the supported formation of new habits. The child generation then
participates in, or observes, the new habits through their formative years, and without thought,
adopts the change as the norm. This generation does not require incentives to remove barriers to
change as arguably, for the child generation, there is no change, only a continuance of the
PAGE | 66 behavioural norm, as demonstrated by their parents behaviour through the children’s formative
years.
Once the induced change, supported by the incentive model, becomes normative, it can
be argued that the change has attained sustainment. The Transtheoretical Model of change
(TTM) recognizes sustained change as the adherence to observable behaviour change for five
years. At this point, the behaviour is considered both habitual and autonomous (Prochaska,
Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 101). This thesis argues that in the dynamic, unstable, and complex
change environment existing in the developing world, permanence cannot be guaranteed after
five years as the factors that inhibit or challenge change are both emergent and unpredictable.
Normalization, and therefore sustainment, of the change only then occurs when the practice is
embedded within the deeper social structure, and exhibited regardless of the socio-political,
physical, or cultural context. This can only be assured when there is no affinity for the previous
way of being which, arguably, can only be guaranteed through the transmission of change across
a generation.
The Incentive Model: Implementing Incentives in the Project Framework
Regardless of the model or structure employed, the activities of development are generally
implemented using a standard project cycle methodology (Crawford & Bryce, 2003, p. 363),
such as that adopted by the World Bank, in which projects are divided into phases including
identification, preparation, appraisal, approval, implementation, completion, and evaluation
(World Bank, 2011). It can be argued that because of the sequential nature of project activities,
or deliverables, within project phases and the sequential nature of project phases within the
PAGE | 67 overall framework, the successful completion of both deliverables and phases relies on the
successful completion of their antecedents. This means that failure to complete any one
deliverable may result in failure of the project phase and therefore overall the failure of the
project.
Depending on the type of project implemented, failure can be attributed to many project-
driven variables including insufficient planning, budget, and / or resources (Kerzner, 2009, p.
63). Other sources of failure, however, can be generated from within the project’s target
population and may relate to poor “motivation, morale, and productivity” (Kerzner, 2009, p. 64),
or in other words, poor engagement, adoption, and execution of project deliverables. In social
transformation projects that seek to alter human behaviour, such as those frequently encountered
in the field of development, the willingness of participants to support the project is as important
as the support of governments and institutions in realizing successful, sustainable outcomes.
Through the lens of the Transtheoretical Model of change, this thesis recommends a structured
approach for the implementation of the incentive model in the standard project framework to
enable maximum sustainability of change outcomes.
Project Identification
The first phase of the project lifecycle entails a detailed analysis of the problem the
initiative intends to solve. Working with government and beneficiaries, development agencies
determine how assistance can be implemented to yield the greatest benefit to the target
population (World Bank, 2011). Included in this phase is the development of project strategies to
reduce poverty and / or improve living standards and identification of the proposed project
objectives, imminent risks, alternative scenarios, and a likely timetable for the project (ibid.).
PAGE | 68 This phase arguably has the greatest bearing on the overall success of the project as
implementing the right initiative, at the right time, for the right population is important to both
project success and long-term sustainability.
Key considerations in this phase should include validation of both the need for the
intervention and the need for external support: is it necessary because an individual or
individuals fail to take personal responsibility for changing their behaviour due to lack of
information? Is the target population unaware of the consequences of the current behaviour or
the value of new behaviour? Is a change in behaviour difficult given the socio-political,
economic, and physical environment? Are change priorities misaligned? (Scott & Schurer, n.d.,
p. 2) Analysis of the proposed objective should identify if a similar change has been previously
attempted and, if so, the reason for failure (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 100).
As part of the risk assessment, early identification of opportunity cost is recommended as
this will help inform the appropriate project strategy and estimated project timeline. The analysis
of opportunity cost should be highly participatory and beneficiary-led with support provided by
development agencies and institutions. Based on the opportunity cost analysis, the
appropriateness of introducing incentives should be assessed given the nature of the initiative
and the existing barriers to change. Incentivization should be avoided if either the opportunity
cost is not quantifiable or the incentives themselves create an adverse impact on the population.
Importantly, if the initiative itself is not appropriate for the population, the introduction of
incentives that reduce or eliminate opportunity cost will not stimulate participants to forcibly
adopt something that is not likable or beneficial to them (Lorenzi & Riley, 2002, p. 200).
PAGE | 69
Acknowledging that low participant engagement is a key source of project failure, it is
important to understand that at this early point in the project, the target population may be
unmotivated or resistant to the idea of change. Additionally, beneficiaries are likely uninformed
or underinformed about the reasons the initiative is required and the impact and intended
outcomes of the project on their daily life (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 100). To
address this, the project should introduce public education and awareness initiatives early in the
project cycle that promote engagement in change through the TTM process of “consciousness
raising” where a greater beneficiary understanding of the problem to be solved, the impact of the
project on daily life, and the relevance of intended outcomes to the individual or community may
increase motivation for change (ibid.).
Project Preparation, Appraisal, and Approvals
Upon completion of the identification phase, the preparation phase of the project lifecycle
seeks to determine overall project feasibility through assessment of the risk and impact analysis
done in the previous phase and solicitation of both project stakeholder and participant feedback
(World Bank, 2011). A plan to mitigate potential risks and adverse impacts identified in the
analysis is constructed between the project and the beneficiaries including proposed
interventions to lessen any negative impacts that the project may have on the beneficiary
population (ibid.)
Planning for the mitigation of risks and impact at this stage of the project is critical to
overall success. Impact assessments should be structured to include the cost - benefit ratio of
implementing the project to the individual, community, and population when compared to doing
nothing (Scott & Schurer, n.d., p. 5). Historically, impact assessments in development projects
PAGE | 70 have focused exclusively or excessively on how income generation, production, or job creation
will change (Ashley & Hussein, 2000, p. 13). To ensure sustainability, the impact of the initiative
on social, cultural, economic, environmental, and physical domains must also be assessed. This
includes taking a longer view of the intended consequences and attempting to determine
potential unintended consequences of the project across time and space (ibid.).
As part of determining overall feasibility, specific incentives to compensate opportunity
costs assessed in the identification phase should be noted. Even though the application of
incentives is intended as a strategy to mitigate project impact on the beneficiary population,
incentives themselves should be reviewed within the impact assessment to ensure that their
introduction will not do more harm than good. Ideally, incentives should act as a tool to enable
the change process of “social liberation” wherein they create opportunities for deprived,
depressed, or underserved populations to participate in the project with as little negative impact
as possible (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 102). If this is not the predicted outcome
when the impact of incentives is assessed, incentives should not be included as part the project
framework. If incentives are considered to be an appropriate tool, their scope, timelines, and cost
should be added into the project plan.
Ideally, by the project preparation phase, public awareness and education campaigns
introduced in the identification phase of the project will have informed the beneficiary
population of the pros and cons of the project and the intended outcomes. The population is now
in a position to weigh the benefits of the project against the costs. Often, this cost - benefit
analysis can produce ambivalence towards the project (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p.
100). A continued project focus on consciousness raising activities, including eliciting
PAGE | 71 participant feedback, can help move a hesitant or ambivalent population towards project
engagement and adoption (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 101).
Upon completing project preparation, project appraisal is required. In this phase, the
project plan is given to national governments and project stakeholders, as applicable, for review
to confirm the project outcomes, intended beneficiaries, and the monitoring and evaluation plan
(World Bank, 2011). While development agency and institution review is important, participant
review and confirmation of the project plan is arguably critical to successful project outcomes as
this participatory process encourages project success by fostering national ownership, promoting
local leadership, and creating partnerships (UNDP, 2011a, p. 6). Once all parties agree on the
project plan, the project can move through the approval phase where final development agency
or institutional approvals are given and funding is released.
Project Implementation and Completion
The project’s implementation phase is a phase of action. It represents the culmination of all
the planning activities that have happened up to this point. At this phase in the project, the
development agency or institution carries out required work, procures goods, delivers services,
and implements mitigation strategies as indicated in the project plan in conjunction with the
beneficiary population (World Bank, 2011). Regular reporting is important as data from project
activities, progress, outcomes, and impacts are used to assess project effectiveness in the
project’s evaluation phase.
Incentives are introduced within the implementation phase as a tool to mitigate the impact
of change associated with project goals. Depending on the results of the risk and impact
assessments, incentives may be individualized or target large groups of participants. The
PAGE | 72 administration of incentives must be continuously monitored and reported on for relevance due
to the complex and dynamic nature of the socio-political and physical environment in which
most development projects operate. What presents as an effective tool for impact mitigation one
day may no longer be relevant the next. Incentives should also be closely monitored for their
valuation as assessed by participants. By definition, incentives should never provide a tangible
benefit, or reward, and should never be the motivating factor for participant engagement in a
project, lest they risk jeopardizing the sustainability of project outcomes. If circumstance
changes and this becomes the case, incentives should be adjusted or removed.
The promotion of self-efficacy in the target population is critical to the success of the
implementation phase. Ideally, this has been fostered in previous phases thorough participation
and awareness activities that empower participants to believe that they can achieve project
outcomes and the motivation to act on that belief (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 101).
This process, identified by TTM as “self-liberation” is what enables the beneficiary population to
take the necessary steps required for successful realization of project outcomes. Part of realizing
self-efficacy is achieving success when attempting the activities of change required to realize
successful project results. Ideally, the introduction of incentives to reduce or eliminate
opportunity cost through mitigation of project impacts facilitate this achievement.
Once implementation has concluded, the project enters the completion phase. The World
Bank indicates this phase may commence between one and ten years after the project
identification phase, depending on the nature of the project (World Bank, 2011). At this point,
the project is closed and the results achieved, lessons learned, knowledge gained, and problems
encountered are documented (ibid.). Final outcomes are evaluated in comparison to expected
PAGE | 73 results and information gained through process of closure is used to determine what measures
and improvements are needed to sustain project benefits (ibid.).
To effectively close a project, it can be argued that the necessary changes in participant
behaviour to realize sustained project results must be must be observed for a duration consistent
with the time required for normalization of the new behaviour, process, or routine. TTM’s
“stimulus control” and “contingency management” are two processes of change that support
adherence to new behaviours or habits through reinforcement (Prochaska, Redding & Evers,
2008, p. 102). These processes can be facilitated with the administration of incentives that
mitigate the impact of the project on beneficiaries. To be successful however, the initiative must
ultimately create a "culture of maintenance" which is the "totality of attitudes, stimuli, rules,
enforcement mechanisms, rewards and sanctions” influencing behaviour to sustain project
outcomes without external support from development agencies or institutions (Cernea, 1993, p.
22). Depending on the project, this can be a long, difficult process which may take significant
time to achieve (UNDP, 2011a, p. 90).
Incentivization should be maintained throughout the process of normalization to continue
to mitigate impacts of the project on the beneficiary population as this will help sustain project
results. Because sustainment of behaviours to enable perpetuity of project outcomes may require
intergenerational and / or intragenerational transmission of behaviour, project closure may not
occur until twenty or more years after the project initiation (UNDP, 2011a, p. 7; Martens, 2006,
p. 1). At this point, if planning was comprehensive, strategies were effective, and implementation
was successful, the project can close and external support can withdraw having achieved
complete beneficiary self-efficacy including self-sufficiency, empowerment, and ownership.
PAGE | 74 Sustainability of project outcomes over the long-term is likely as participants will have fully
adopted the behaviours, processes, or routines required to enable the perpetuity of project results.
Ideally, these behaviours, processes, or routines have become automatic and ingrained within the
physical, socio-political, and cultural environment (Prochaska, Redding & Evers, 2008, p. 101).
Project Evaluation
The project evaluation phase measures the overall success of the project once all activities
are complete and the project is closed. To evaluate success, the relevance of objectives to the
needs of the beneficiaries, the efficacy of the initiative, the economic cost-efficiency of the
project, the likelihood of results being sustained beyond the closure of the project, and
performance indicators for the both institution and the participants are assessed (World Bank,
2011). Additional measurements may include the economic worth of the project and long-term
effects of the project on both people and the environment (ibid.).
During this evaluation process, it is important to ask whether the project was good as it
could have been for the resources expended and to assess the totality of social and fiscal costs
when all costs have been considered including intangibles such as stress on the project staff,
participants, and beneficiaries (Lorenzi & Riley, 2002, p. 198). Conventionally, many
development projects are primarily justified in terms of external, intangible benefits with limited
consideration of on-site costs. Ideally, development projects balance these external benefits with
internal benefits of social, economic, environmental, and cultural sustainability; however, to be
institutionally sustainable, the project must generate sufficient on-site gains to balance the costs
of the initiative (Emerton, 1999, p. 46). Because of this, it is important to assess the cost-
PAGE | 75 effectiveness of incentives as an impact mitigation tool in addition to standard evaluation
metrics.
PAGE | 76
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION
This study has carefully examined the nature of development as a process of
transformational change, the sustainability of change outcomes as integral to successful
development, and the effective application of various forms of incentivization across multiple
fields to create a case for the introduction of incentives to enable sustainable outcomes through
the reduction or elimination of opportunity cost in development aid initiatives. Through
theoretical and empirical support, the three conditions identified as necessary for the effective
use of incentives to sustain development outcomes were fulfilled; that is, with evidence from the
literature this thesis maintains that development is change, that successful change is sustainable
change, and that incentives can be effective in creating and sustaining change.
Development as transformational change interconnecting people, process and technology is
central to this project. The concept of development as change also enables the use of change
theories to create a foundation on which to build a structure of sustainability through the lens of
human behavior. Because human motivation and behavior is as dynamic as the physical and
sociocultural environment in which they live, it is important to not only understand why people
change, but how they change. By analyzing and combining practical and theoretical change
models from the fields of psychology, sociology, health promotion, information technology with
economic concepts of risk and benefit, it becomes possible to expand the singular relevance of
any one change theory to be broadly relevant in the complex and multifaceted field of
development.
PAGE | 77
Working from the theoretical platform of behavior change, it is important to understand the
nature of sustainability and the importance of a defining sustainability in terms of a
multidimensional focus on perpetuation of development outcomes rather than a narrowed focus
of sustainability as a framework for environmental conservation. Looking at the significance of
sustainability to future development and the impact of unsustainable outcomes on recipient
populations, the condition of successful change as sustainable change becomes increasingly
relevant. Though sustainability at present is an inexact science, the importance of maintaining
long-term, relevant, progressive, and positive outcomes in beneficiary populations begs
continued analysis and new ideas for achieving sustainability.
With the understanding that sustaining outcomes is paramount, analysis of effective
models for creating and sustaining change across other industries becomes highly relevant to the
study of sustainability in development. As explored in the literature, incentives have shown
promise in creating and sustaining change when employed in areas such as health promotion,
environmental conservation, and foreign aid. Though the actual model of incentivization may
differ between the areas, the general principle of incentives is that they change participant
motivation to engage in and sustain change. Generally, incentive structures appeal to either
intrinsic or extrinsic motivations and while both have been shown to create change, it is widely
accepted that it is intrinsic motivation that sustains it. The case studies selected to explore
incentive models offer different examples of incentivization to create and sustain change, some
appealing to extrinsic motivators, some to intrinsic, though all are effective to some degree in
sustaining the specific change. Most importantly, empirical evidence from the case studies
supports the condition of incentives creating and sustaining change, enough to build a unique
incentive model leveraging theory and practice for application in the field of development.
PAGE | 78
The incentive model proposed in this thesis combines the theory and practice explored
throughout the project in a framework that merges ‘bottom-up’ development fundamentals with
‘top-down’ change successes to create a sustainable change model. In contrast to conventional
incentive models of reward to create change, the proposed incentive model seeks to remove
barriers to change allowing the initiative and the supporting process of change to become the
impetus for participant engagement in change and sustainment of change outcomes. Because the
incentive model focuses on the removal of barriers rather than bribery or coercion to create and
perpetuate change, it inherently promotes self-efficacy through empowerment, something which
is essential to sustainability.
Ideally implemented as part of a project framework with a focus on planning and analysis,
this model combines participatory governance and public education and awareness to create a
holistic approach to sustainability. By also increasing the duration of the project to increase the
length of time incentives are administered, the model appeals to the principles of inter and
intragenerational transference to increase sustainability in addition to promoting normalization
through continued adherence to a new behavior in the absence of opportunity cost. Ultimately,
the proposed incentive model leverages a historically technocratic approach to change, combines
it with fundamentals of risk and benefit analysis and redesigns it to align with the new
development paradigm wherein development institutions and agencies are bodies of support
rather than bodies of control.
Based on the limitations of secondary research, the incentive model is theoretical in nature
and not without its practical flaws. There is no doubt that the model, as proposed, is costly.
Whether fiscal or social in nature, compensation for opportunity cost over the recommended
PAGE | 79 project duration for a potentially significant percentage of the target population represents a
considerable financial investment from donor sources. However, it is predicted by this author
that future research on the cost efficiency of the incentive model in comparison to the cost
efficiency of repeat implementation iterations to sustain previously unsustained outcomes will
weight in favour of incentives.
Ultimately, the recognition of an incentive model to reduce or eliminate opportunity cost as
valuable in the standard development project framework will be determined by donors and
development institutions. To elicit support from these groups, substantive comparative field
research is required to prove the cost effectiveness of the incentive model. Because the model
requires a longer project duration for success and therefore longer-term funding, donors and
institutions must begin to adopt a change in the view of development as a shorter-term venture,
looking for results to justify the costs incurred decades in the future rather than years.
Additionally, the practical applicability of the incentive model may be limited by the very
notion of opportunity cost. As an economic concept, opportunity cost is inherently quantifiable.
While this quantification can readily be applied in many social, economic, political, and
environmental change scenarios, it is not universally relevant to all types of change experienced
by beneficiary populations. Cultural or emotional cost associated with a change are two
examples of the potentially difficulty in using the incentive model for development initiatives.
While incentives in these instances might help decrease the overall opportunity cost, they are not
a complete solution to matters involving emotions or tradition.
Finally, while not practical in nature, further limitations of this thesis are based in the
restrictions of the number of theories presented. There is no doubt that the change theories
PAGE | 80 explored in this project are lacking in their comprehensive representation of all available theory
relevant to the topic of human behaviour change. Many reputable authors have written on the
topics of change and motivation, across many disciplines. Because of the exceptional volume of
literature available on these topics, a prioritization of available theories was required to reduce
the theoretical framework to a selection of theories this author found most meaningful to the
specific argument. Many concepts pertinent to the argument of incentives, such as the issue of
moral hazard, were not overlooked in this thesis, but instead considered as additional avenues of
exploration of for future research on this topic.
Incentives have the potential to be very useful in promoting and sustaining change in
development initiatives when introduced as a tool to remove barriers to change through the
reduction or elimination of opportunity cost. When dealing with vulnerable populations such as
those frequently targeted by development agencies and institutions, it is imperative that we
approach change in a manner that poses no threat, unites participants through a common goal,
and increases overall utility while empowering the population for the future. Incentives, as
proposed, have the ability to meet these requirements if managed properly. However, it is
important to remember that regardless of the change or the manner in which it is implemented,
we cannot expect participants to adopt a change, even when barriers are removed, that is not
likable to them. In the end, practitioners of development exist to play the role of supporters, not
leaders. We must enable the participants determine the direction and pace of change while we
work to remove obstacles that may stand in the way of positive, progressive outcomes.
PAGE | 81
References
Ackerman, L. (1997). Development, transition or transformation: the question of change in
organisations. In D. F. Van Eynde, J. C. Hoy, and D. C. Van Eynde (eds.) Organisation
Development Classics (pp. 45 - 58). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishing.
Alderman, H., Gilligan, D. O. & Leher, K. (2008a). How effective are food for education
programs? A critical assessment of the evidence from developing countries. International
Food Policy Research Institution. Retrieved from http://www.ifpri.org/publications/how-
effective-are-food-education-programs-0
Alderman, H., Gilligan, D. O. & Leher, K. (2008b). The Impact of Alternative Food for
Education Programs on School Participation and Education Attainment in Northern Uganda.
Retrieved from
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~econ0274/downloads/Alderman_Gilligan_Lehrer_FFE__School_Partici
pation.pdf
Amit, R., Golsten, L. & Muller, E. (2007). Challenges to theory development in entrepreneurship
research. Journal of Management Studies, 30(5), 815 – 834.
Ashley, C. & Hussein, K. (2000). Developing methodologies for livelihood impact assessment:
experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa. Overseas Development
Institute: Sustainable Livelihoods, 7 – 55.
PAGE | 82 Associated Press. (2007, December 23). Examples of failed aid-funded projects in Africa.
MSNBC. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22380448/ns/world_news-
africa/t/examples-failed-aid-funded-projects-africa/#.T2lNJsWPWSp
Bai, X., Wieczorek, A. J., Kaneko, S., Lisson, S. & Contreras, A. (2009). Enabling sustainability
transitions in Asia: The importance of vertical and horizontal linkages. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 76(2), 255 – 266.
Bamberg, S. (2002). Effects of Implementation Intentions on the Actual Performance of New
Environmentally Friendly Behaviours – Results of Two Field Experiments. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 22(4), 399 – 411.
Barnes, J. I., Macgregor, J. & Weaver, L. C. (2002). Economic efficiency and incentives for
change within Namibia's community wildlife use initiatives. World Development, 30(4), 667 –
681.
Becker, G. S. (2007). Habits, Addictions, and Traditions. Kyklos, 45(3), 327 – 345.
Beddington, J. R., Agnew, D. J. & Clark, C. W. (2007). Current Problems in the Management of
Marine Fisheries. Science, 316, 1713 – 1716.
Bluedorn, H. (1995). Two Methods of Reasoning: An Introduction to Inductive and Deductive
Logic. Retrieved from
http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/two_methods_of_reasoning.php
Boesten, J., Mdee, A. & Cleaver, F. (2011). Service delivery on the cheap? Community-based
workers in development interventions. Development in Practice, 21(1), 41 – 58.
PAGE | 83 Bossert, T. (2002). Can they get along without us? Sustainability of donor-supported health
projects in Central America and Africa. Social Science & Medicine, 30(9), 1015 – 1023.
Brug, J., Conner, M., Harre, N., Kremers, S., McKellar, S. & Whitelaw, S. (2005). The
Transtheoretical Model and stages of change: a critique. Observations by five Commentators
on the paper by Adams, J. and White, M. (2004) Why don't stage-based activity promotion
interventions work? Health Education Research, 20(2), 244 – 258.
Center for Disease Control. (2011). Understanding and Promoting Physical Activity. In Physical
Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General (chapter 6). Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/sgr/contents.htm
Cernea, M. M. (1993). Culture and Organization: The Social Sustainability of Induced
Development. Sustainable Development, 1(2), 18 – 29.
Crawford, P. & Bryce, P. (2001). Project monitoring and evaluation: A method for enhancing the
efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. International Journal of Project
Management, 21(2003), 363 – 373.
De Young, R. (1985). Encouraging Environmentally Appropriate Behaviour: The Role of
Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Environmental Systems (15)4, 281 – 292.
Deenen, W. R. T. (2007). Project Governance – Phases and Lifecycle. Management and
Marketing Journal, 193 – 198.
Dichter, T. (2003). Despite good intentions: Why development assistance to the Third World has
failed. Massachusetts, PA: University of Massachusetts Press.
PAGE | 84 Emerton, L. (1999). Balancing the opportunity costs of wildlife conservation for the
communities around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Evaluating Eden Series Discussion
Papers, 1 – 27.
Erasmus, C. J. (1962). The Achieving Society by David C. McClelland: Review by Charles J.
Erasmus. American Anthropologist, 3(1), 622 – 625.
Fien, J. & Tilbury, D. (2002). The global challenge of sustainability. In D. Tilbury, R. B.
Stevenson, J. Fien and D. Schreuder (eds.) Education and Sustainability Responding to the
Global Challenge (pp. 1 - 12). Cambridge, UK: ICUN.
Gersick, C. J. G. & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups.
Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 47(1), 65 – 97.
Government of Canada Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
(2007). Overcoming 40 years of failure: A new roadmap for sub-Saharan Africa. Retrieved
from http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/391/fore/rep/repafrifeb07-e.pdf
Grafton, R. Q., Arnason, R., Bjørndal, T., Campbell, D., Campbell, H. F., Clark, C. W., Connor,
R., Dupont, D. P., Hannesson, R., Hilborn, R., Kirkley, J. E., Kompas, T., Lane, D. E.,
Munro, G., R., Pascoe, S., Squires, D., Steinshamn, S. I., Turris, B. R. & Weninger, Q.
(2006). Incentive-based approaches to sustainable fisheries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences, 63(3), 699 – 710.
Grier, S. & Bryant, C. A. (2005). Social Marketing in Public Health. Annual Review of Public
Health, 26, 319 – 339.
PAGE | 85 Hilborn, R., Orensanz, J. M. & Parma, A. M. (2005). Institutions, incentives and the future of
fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 360, 47 – 57.
House, R. J. & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and Charismatic Leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 3(2), 81 – 108.
International Fund for Agricultural Development. (2009). Sustainability of rural development
projects: Best practices and lessons learned by IFAD in Asia in Occasional Papers #8.
Retrieved from http://www.ifad.org/operations/projects/regions/pi/paper/8.pdf
International Institute for Sustainable Development. (2011). What is sustainable development?
Retrieved from http://www.iisd.org/sd/
Jelencic, M. (2010). Motivational Theories – An Overview. Norderstedt, Germany: Druck and
Bindung.
Kemp, R. & Loorbach, D. (2003). Governance for sustainability through transition management.
EAEPE 2003 Conference, 1 – 27.
Kemp, R. & Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of
co-evolution towards sustainable development. The International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology, 14(1), 78 – 91.
Kerka, S. (2003). Intergenerational Learning and Social Capital. Educational Resource
Information Center. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED478947.pdf
Kerzner, H. (2009). Project Management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and
controlling. Hoboken, NJ: John Willey and Sons Inc.
PAGE | 86 Knott, D., Muers, S. & Aldridge, S. (2008). Achieving Culture Change: A Policy Framework.
Government of the United Kingdom, Strategy Unit. Retrieved from
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100125070726/http:/cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/
cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/achieving_culture_change.pdf
Kreps, D. M. (1997). Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives. The American Economic
Review, 87(2), 359 – 364.
Lochner, L. (2008). Intergenerational Transmission in S. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.) New
Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition. Retrieved from
http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_F000317
Loorbach, D. A. (2007). Transition Management: new mode of governance for sustainable
development. Retrieved from RePub Dissertaions. (ISBN 978-905727-057-4).
Lorenzi, N. M. & Riley, R. T. (2002). Organizational Issues = Change. International Journal of
Medical Informatics, 69(2-3), 197 – 203.
Lubega Korugyendo, P. & Benson, T. (2011). Food for Education programs: Lessons from
Uganda. Retrieved from http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ussppn13.pdf
Lyons, M., Smuts, C. & Stephens, A. (2001). Participation, empowerment and sustainability:
(How) do the links work? Urban Studies, 38(8), 1233 – 1251.
Marteau, T. M., Ashcroft, R. E. & Oliver, A. (2009). Using Financial Incentives to Achieve
Healthy Behaviour. British Medical Journal, 338(1415), 703 – 707.
PAGE | 87 Martens, P. (2006). Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustainability: Science, Practice and
Policy, 2(1). Retrieved from
http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol2iss1/communityessay.martens.html
May, C. & Finch, T. (2009). Implementing, Embedding, and Integrating Practices: An Outline of
Normalization Process Theory. Sociology, 43, 535 – 554.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Promoting Sustainable Behaviour: An Introduction to Community-
Based Social Marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 543 – 554.
Moffatt, J. & Whip, R. (2004). The Struggle to Quit: Barriers and Incentives to Smoking
Cessation. Health Education Journal, 63, 101 – 112.
Mog, M. J. (2004). Struggling with Sustainability—A Comparative Framework for Evaluating
Sustainable Development Programs. World Development, 32(12), 2139 – 2160.
Moller, A. C., Ryan, A. M. & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-Determination Theory and Public Policy:
Improving the Quality of Consumer Decisions Without Using Coercion. Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing, 25(1), 104 – 116.
Murray, E., Treweek, S., Pope, C., MacFarlane, A., Ballini, L., Dowrick, C., Finch, T., Kennedy,
A., Mair, F., O’Donnell, C., Ong, B. N., Rapley, T., Rogers, A. & May, C. (2010).
Normalisation process theory: a framework for developing, evaluating and implementing
complex interventions. BMC Medicine, 8(63), 1741 – 1751.
Neal, D. T., Wood, W. & Quinn, J. M. (2006). Habits – a repeat performance. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15(4), 198 – 202.
PAGE | 88 Niesten, E. & Gjertsen, H. (2010). Economic incentives motivate human behaviour change.
Science to Action. Retrieved from
http://www.science2action.org/files/s2a/economicincentivespolicybrief.pdf
Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved from
http://emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html.
Palmer, S. & Raftery, J. (1999). Economic Notes: Opportunity Cost. British Medical Journal,
318(7197), 1551 – 1552.
Pezzoli, K. (1997). Sustainable Development: A Transdisciplinary Overview of the Literature.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40(5), 549 – 574.
Prochaska, J. O., Redding, C. A., & Evers, K. E. (2008). The Transtheoretical Model and Stages
of Change. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health Behaviour and Health
Education: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 98 – 121). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Raskin, P. D. (2000). Bending the Curve: Towards Global Sustainability. Development, 43(4), 67
– 74.
Ratcliff, D. (1994). Analytic Induction as a Qualitative Research Method of Analysis. Retrieved
from http://qualitativeresearch.ratcliffs.net
Rice, M. P., Leifer, R., O’Connor, G. C. & Olin, F. W. (2002). Commercializing discontinuous
innovations: bridging the gap from discontinuous innovation project to operations. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(4), 330 – 340.
PAGE | 89 Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J. & Marshall, H. B. (1988). Social Learning Theory and the
Health Belief Model. Health Education and Behaviour, 15(2), 175 – 183.
Rotmans, J. & Kemp, R. (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in
public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15 – 31.
Rotmans, J. & Loorbach, D. (2009). Complexity and transition management. Journal of
Industrial Ecology, 13(2), 184 – 196.
Scott, A. & Schurer, S. (n.d.). Financial incentives, personal responsibility and prevention.
Retrieved from
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/nhhrc/publishing.nsf/Content/16F7A93D8F578DB4CA257
4D7001830E9/$File/Financial%20incentives,%20personal%20responsibility%20and%20prev
ention%20(A%20Scott%20S%20Schurer).pdf
Soy, S. K. (1997). The Case Study as a Research Method. Retrieved from
http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~ssoy/usesusers/1391d1b.htm.
Sunderlin, W. D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L. & Wunder, S.
(2005). Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: an overview. World
Development 33(9), 1383 – 1402.
Theory of Needs. (2008). In New World Encyclopedia online. Retrieved from
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/David_McClelland#Theory_of_needs.
United Nations Development Group. (2011). MDG Good Practices: Armenia’s Food for
Education. Retrieved from http://mdgpolicynet.undg.org/ext/MDG-Good-
Practices/mdg2/MDG2A_Armenia_Food_for_Education.pdf
PAGE | 90 United Nations Development Programme. (2011a). Supporting Transformational Change in Case
Studies of Sustained and Successful Development Cooperation. Retrieved from
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/poverty-
reduction/case_studies_of_sustainedandsuccessfuldevelopmentcooperation-sup.html
United Nations Development Programme. (2011b). Human Development Reports: Statistics.
Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/data/calculator/
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. (2000). Sustaining Development in
Visible Hands: Taking Responsibility for Social Development. Retrieved from
http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/document.nsf/(httpAuxPages)/DD1648070E51FC23C1
256BDF00500CB9?OpenDocument&panel=additional
University of Texas. (2011). Discourse Analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/discourse.htm
University of Twente. (2002). Social Cognitive Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Alphabetic%20list%20of%20theories/
Vallerand, R. J. (2008). Towards a Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 271 – 360.
van Pelt, M. F. J. (1993). Ecologically sustainable development and project appraisal in
developing countries. Ecological Economics, 7(1), 19 – 42.
Volpp, K. G., Gurmankin Levy, A., Asch, D. A., Berlin, J. A., Murphy, J. J., Gomez, A., Sox,
H., Zhu, J. & Lerman, C. (2006). A randomized controlled trial of financial incentives for
smoking cessation. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 15, 12 – 18.
PAGE | 91 Volpp, K. G., Troxel, A. B., Pauly, M. V., Glick, H. A., Puig, A., Asch, D. A., Galvin, R., Zhu,
J., Wan, F., DeGuzman, J., Corbett, E., Weiner, J. & Audrian-McGovern, J.(2009a). A
Randomized, controlled Trial of Financial Incentives for Smoking Cessation. New England
Journal of Medicine, 360(7), 699 – 709.
Volpp, K. G., Troxel, A. B., Pauly, M. V., Glick, H. A., Puig, A., Asch, D. A., Galvin, R., Zhu,
J., Wan, F., DeGuzman, J., Corbett, E., Weiner, J. & Audrian-McGovern, J. (2009b).
Financial Incentives for Smoking Cessation in H. A. Tindle & T. S. Bowman (Eds.)
Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports, 3(6), 381 – 382.
Williamson, C. R. (2010). Exploring the failure of foreign aid: The role of incentives and
information. The Review of Austrian Economics 23(1), 17 – 33.
Wood, W. & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. Psychological
Review, 114(4), 843 – 863.
World Bank. (2011). Project Cycle. Retrieved from
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/0,,contentMDK:20120731~me
nuPK:41390~pagePK:41367~piPK:51533~theSitePK:40941,00.html#completion
World Food Programme. (2011a). Fact Sheet: Food for Education. Retrieved from
http://one.wfp.org/food_aid/school_feeding/Docs/WFP_SFfactsheet%20ENG06.pdf
World Food Programme. (2011b). Development Project No. 10727.0: Food for Education in
rural Djibouti. Retrieved from
http://one.wfp.org/operations/current_operations/project_docs/107270.pdf
PAGE | 92 World Resources Institute. (1999). Smoking Related Deaths. Retrieved from
http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8339
