Date post: | 02-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Environment |
Upload: | irc |
View: | 48 times |
Download: | 3 times |
IRC Mini Symposium
The Human Factor in WASH Change Processes
Factors for success in learning and change
Humanity House – June 18 2015
Luuk van Kempen
Community “culture” (I)
A ‘romantic’ view on community life:
1. Social capital is present, only needs mobilization willingness to cooperate with other community members taken for granted
2. People are well-informed about behaviour of ‘neighbours’ level of adherence to social norms is known
3. Social approval is granted to people who try to get ahead in life and put newly gained wealth on display no risk to program participation
Rural electrification program on Zanzibar yielded lower benefits than expected because of the “restrictions people face in buying electrical
consumables for fear of the evil eye” (quoted in White, 2011)
Community “culture” (II)
Success story from Bangladesh (Guiteras, Levinsohn & Mobarak, Science, 2015):
Subsidies to buy toilet by random allocation (lottery)
# of toilet owners > # of lottery winners, especially in villages with many lottery winners strong “social multiplier” effect
Community “culture” (III)
Success story from Costa Rica (Datta et al., World Bank, 2015):
Significant decrease in water use by using stickers that compare household consumption with that of social referents
Only works if own neighbourhood is taken as reference group!
NGO “culture”
Weak incentives to invest in getting “under the skin” of communities downward accountability becomes diluted
Donor reporting requirements emphasize “scale” pressure to expand activities to new target areas (or groups) + tendency to work through smaller CBOs as “extension agents” in the field
Compare “dogfooding” and “immersion programs” in private sector
Local government “culture”
Downward accountability is selective (strong to ‘clients’; weak to all others)
Mansuri & Rao (2013): To provide stronger incentives to local bureaucrats, bottom-up pressure from civil society is necessary but insufficient condition; pressure from the ‘top’ is equally important
‘sandwich’ model