The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Localizing Development
Open accessAbstract
The Policy Research Report Localizing Development: Does Participation Work? brings analytical rigor to a field that has been the subject of intense debate and advocacy, and billions of dollars in development aid. It briefly reviews the history of participatory development and argues that its two modalities, community-based development and local decentralization, should be treated under the broader unifying umbrella of local development. It suggests that a distinction between organic participation (endogenous efforts by civic activists to bring about change) and induced participation (large-scale efforts to engineer participation at the local level via projects) is key, and focuses on the challenges of inducing participation. The report provides a conceptual framework for thinking about participatory development and then uses this framework to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature. The framework develops the concept of “civil society failure” and explains its interaction with government and market failures. It argues that participatory development, which is often viewed as a mechanism for bypassing market and government failures by ”harnessing” civic capacity, ought to be seen instead as a mechanism that, if done right, could help to repair important civil society failures. It distills literature from anthropology, economics, sociology, and political science to outline the challenges for effective policy in this area, looking at issues such as the uncertainty of trajectories of change, the importance of context, the role of elite capture and control, the challenge of collective action, and the role of the state. The review of the evidence looks at a variety of issues: the impact of participatory projects on inclusion, civic capacity, and social cohesion; on key development outcomes, such as income, poverty, and inequality; on public service delivery; and on the quality of local public goods. It draws on the evidence to suggest several recommendations for policy, emphasizing the key role of learning-by-doing. It then reviews participatory projects funded by the World Bank and finds the majority lacking in several arenas – particularly in paying attention to context and in creating effective monitoring and evaluation systems that allow for learning.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future
Fung, A. (2015) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.12361 · Cited by 1,232
Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say?
Fox, J. A. (2015) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.011 · Cited by 803
NGOs, States, and Donors Revisited: Still Too Close for Comfort?
Banks, N., Hulme, D., & Edwards, M. (2015) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.09.028 · Cited by 772
Does Transparency Improve Governance?
Kosack, S., & Fung, A. (2014) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-032210-144356 · Cited by 420
Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AI
Birhane, A., Isaac, W., Prabhakaran, V., Diaz, M., Elish, M. C., Gabriel, I., & Mohamed, S. (2022) · Equity and Access in Algorithms Mechanisms and Optimization · doi:10.1145/3551624.3555290 · Cited by 330
Metadata
- Authors
- Mansuri, G., & Rao, V.
- Venue
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics
- Publisher
- Washington, DC: World Bank
- Published
- 2012-11-15
- OpenAlex
- W1918829612
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Localizing Development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1596/978-0-8213-8256-1
- The paper
- Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2013). Localizing Development. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8256-1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.