**_Table 1: Change in Elite Involvement and Level of KDP-triggered Problems/Conflicts_**

|**_Province_**|**_Change in Elite Involvement_**|**_Conflict triggered_**|
|---|---|---|
|East Java|High|10.5%|
||Medium|39.9%|
||Low|70.5%|
|NTT|High|21.4%|
||Medium|15.3%|
||Low|22.3%|

Source: Key Informant Survey (treatment sites only) Both program malfunction and interaction conflicts were also evident in other development projects in our research sites. (In-built conflicts were somewhat rarer, given the lack of explicit competition in the design of most other programs). The follow example highlights a drawn out conflict over several years which took place in one village which escalated to include actors at the district level and outside the village. It has never been fully resolved. The following is an excerpt from the case study.

In Banyupelle Village, blood, faeces, and refuse from the slaughter of animals at the centrally located abattoir festered and rotted, draining into the river nearby. The river was used by the local people to bathe, wash, and for _air wudhu_ (ritual ablutions water) for _sholat_ (ritual prayers). The community’s long-standing frustration with the impact of the slaughtering activities eventually intensified when a comment was made by one of the _Kyai_ (muslim clerics) in his sermons that the river water was _najis_ (unclean) so that it could not be used to purify oneself for daily prayers. The district government made few attempts to resolve the problem and ignored the complaints of the villagers. In 1998, a mob of about 500 people destroyed the abattoir, leaving only about ten percent of the abattoir floor remaining.

This incident triggered a series of elite level disputes. Lacking an alternative site, the slaughterers continued killing their cattle in the ruins of the roofless abattoir, as much for practical reasons as to make a political statement. The Village Head, renowned for his links to criminal groups, politically opposed the head of the League of Slaughterers group. While discussions about building a new abattoir began, no-one could agree on a location. The Village Head made a nonconsultative executive decision on the new site, not far from his home, but a long way from the public services required by the slaughterers. Land was purchased at a low price by the Village Head and sold back to the district government for a profit. Construction of the new abattoir began, corners were cut, and rumors circulated about corruption of funds. Uncertainty over the construction process annoyed the slaughterers who felt excluded from the decision-making process. In the year 2000, the community again expressed their discontent through the destruction of the remaining floor of the old abattoir. The head of the slaughterers eventually built an abattoir on his own property. While the community was finally satisfied, the new public abattoir went unoccupied and elite tensions increased. Meetings were held to try and resolve the problem, but the elites have continued with their own agendas and the problem remains unresolved to date. Noone uses the public abattoir and public funds have been wasted.

The excerpt above demonstrates the intersection between elite interests, conflict, and development programs, and the problems that can result from elites power-seeking through development processes. This is a common story of the interaction between development programs (both KDP and non-KDP) and conflict, particularly in periods of democratization as villagers become more vocal, make more demands, and learn from introduced projects which promote transparency.

However, the key finding from this research was that while there were a variety of development programs in the research areas and resulting conflicts, KDP conflicts did not 19