capable of capturing information on vulnerability and that this allowed existing village governance norms to prevail and limit the benefits to vulnerable groups (IFAD 2020).

As CDD projects evolve, and some target specific marginalized groups, there are additional questions about CDD’s impacts on inclusion outcomes that should be explored. This includes questions about whether activities layered onto the CDD model can effectively foster positive social norms, such as norms regarding gender equality, intimate partner violence, or forced labor. More research is also required on how variation in the amount and type of facilitation in CDD projects affects norms and behaviors regarding the role of marginalized groups’ participation in the CDD project and other aspects of public life.

_Table 2: Inclusion – Summary of the evidence_

|What we know:|•<br>CDD is an effective tool to improve quality and access to basic services and<br>infrastructure<br>•<br>CDD increasesparticipation in local developmentprocesses|
|---|---|
|What is unknown:|•<br>How variation in the type and quality of facilitation affects outcomes<br>•<br>When and why participation spillover occurs and how this spillover affects<br>other development outcomes<br>•<br>How much and what type of participation is necessary to achieve efficient<br>subproject implementation<br>•<br>Why some projects are more/less effective at reaching vulnerable regions and<br>households<br>•<br>The extent to which CDD projects foster pro-social norms (i.e., regarding<br>women, displaced persons)<br>•<br>What implementation modalities, structure, and phasing work best to<br>increaseparticipation in local decision making|

# 3.2 Resilience

## _Economic welfare (income, assets, markets, labor force participation)_

Traditional CDD projects rarely include an explicit objective to increase income or private assets; however, evaluations show that the investments in small-scale infrastructure and services sometimes lead to modest improvements in economic welfare. A meta-analysis of CDD projects, including World Bankfinanced projects in Afghanistan and Sierra Leone, finds that, overall, projects tend to have a positive and statistically significant effect on economic welfare measures such as household income, consumption, assets, and employment (Casey 2018).<sup>25</sup> For example, in Sierra Leone, the _GoBifo_ project contributed to an increase in household asset ownership, a 30 percent increase in the number of petty traders, and a 13 percent increase in goods available for local sale within treatment villages. In Cambodia, the _CSF_ project reduced poverty in treated villages and increased daily consumption spending (by 7 percent) and monthly 25 A review of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) CDD projects (many of which are not World Bank-financed) conducted by their Independent Office of Evaluation (IOE) also finds that CDD projects often improve household consumption and living standards (IFAD 2020). These economic welfare effects are most likely driven by CDD’s investments in infrastructure and services. However, research also suggests that CDD’s approach of forming groups that increase cooperative activities and interactions with local leaders can also contribute to increased economic returns (Blattman et al. 2016; Macours and Vakis 2014).

14