PhD Researcher in Development Studies | Behavioral Scientist
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Posted on 16/04/2025
Dear Ram,
I completely agree with your observations on the lack of local ownership and participation in top-down, large-scale projects. I believe the effectiveness of such initiatives largely depends on their nature. When a project is relief-oriented and aims for short-term outcomes, a top-down approach can be beneficial due to its efficiency, centralized resource pooling, and systematic coordination.
However, for development-oriented goals, large-scale projects often suffer from a lack of community ownership and participation. This is primarily due to two reasons: first, the design of these projects frequently fails to account for nuanced local needs and contextual specificities; second, beneficiaries often lack agency and intrinsic motivation to engage meaningfully.
Take microfinance programs for small farmers as an example. While they have proven successful in Bangladesh through models like Grameen Bank, large-scale implementation in China led to the collapse of hundreds of institutions and a surge in bad debt. One key reason is that the concept of microloans was not well embedded in the local mindset and cultural understanding. Many farmers perceived these loans as a form of aid, which resulted in low repayment rates.
In summary, interventions that rely heavily on human agency must be behaviorally informed, context-sensitive, and ideally co-designed with local actors. Understanding community needs beforehand is crucial for meaningful impact.
Regarding M&E systems, I find that they often fail to capture both the bottlenecks and the positive transformations occurring at the local level, especially when they rely solely on objective indicators. In-depth fieldwork—whether qualitative or mixed-method—is essential to explore the behavioral and psychological factors that drive or hinder change.
RE: Do Big Projects Deliver Effective Solutions in a Complex World?
Netherlands
Zhiqi Xu
PhD Researcher in Development Studies | Behavioral Scientist
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Posted on 16/04/2025
Dear Ram,
I completely agree with your observations on the lack of local ownership and participation in top-down, large-scale projects. I believe the effectiveness of such initiatives largely depends on their nature. When a project is relief-oriented and aims for short-term outcomes, a top-down approach can be beneficial due to its efficiency, centralized resource pooling, and systematic coordination.
However, for development-oriented goals, large-scale projects often suffer from a lack of community ownership and participation. This is primarily due to two reasons: first, the design of these projects frequently fails to account for nuanced local needs and contextual specificities; second, beneficiaries often lack agency and intrinsic motivation to engage meaningfully.
Take microfinance programs for small farmers as an example. While they have proven successful in Bangladesh through models like Grameen Bank, large-scale implementation in China led to the collapse of hundreds of institutions and a surge in bad debt. One key reason is that the concept of microloans was not well embedded in the local mindset and cultural understanding. Many farmers perceived these loans as a form of aid, which resulted in low repayment rates.
In summary, interventions that rely heavily on human agency must be behaviorally informed, context-sensitive, and ideally co-designed with local actors. Understanding community needs beforehand is crucial for meaningful impact.
Regarding M&E systems, I find that they often fail to capture both the bottlenecks and the positive transformations occurring at the local level, especially when they rely solely on objective indicators. In-depth fieldwork—whether qualitative or mixed-method—is essential to explore the behavioral and psychological factors that drive or hinder change.
Looking forward to your thoughts!
Cheers,
Zhiqi