# 3.3 Cohesion

## _Shared purpose and trust_

Existing evaluations find that CDD has minimal or null effects on measured social cohesion outcomes.<sup>32</sup> Rigorous evaluations of projects in Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Nepal, and Lao PDR find that those projects have no substantive effect on a range of social capital and social cohesion outcomes (Beath et al. 2013; Casey et al. 2012; Parajuli et al. 2012; World Bank 2008).<sup>33</sup> Similarly, Casey’s (2018) meta-analysis of CDD projects, including those in Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, and Sudan, finds that, overall, the projects do not improve trust outcomes.<sup>34</sup> In Kyrgyz Republic, a CDD project had moderately positive impacts on a shared sense of unity between social and ethnic groups but no strong impacts on trust in other people or in local government (Esenaliev et al. 2018). An analysis of the _KALAHI-CIDSS_ program in the Philippines finds that the project increased trust in strangers (Labonne and Chase 2008). In Thailand, the _Social Investment Fund (SIF)_ project positively affected several social capital outcomes including a greater sense of self-sacrifice for the common good and improved vertical connections to formal authorities (Chase et al. 2010). However, the same Philippines and Thailand projects, along with a project in Indonesia, were associated with decreased trust in neighbors in some contexts, perhaps because the introduction of new funds increased tensions (Barron, Diprose, Woolcock 2011; Chase et al. 2010; Labonne and Chase 2008).<sup>35</sup> An analysis of The Gambia’s _Community Development Project (CDP)_ finds that households in treatment villages reported fewer social links and less participation in community-based organizations (Heß et al. 2021). In contrast, a large mixed methods study of _KDP_ in Indonesia found improvements in relations across a range of identity cleavages in project villages compared to matched control sites (Barron, Diprose, and Woolcock 2011).

Although many hypothesize that CDD projects should improve social cohesion, there are several potential explanations for these mixed and null effects. First, most CDD programs do not include any specific social cohesion activities and are not designed with any explicit purpose to improve social cohesion (Chatterjee, Gassier, and Myint 2023; Avdeenko and Gilligan 2015). Second, CDD communities are often quite homogenous and have high baseline levels of trust, cohesion, social ties, and civic engagement (Casey 2018; Samii 2023).<sup>36</sup> For example, evaluations in Sierra Leone and Afghanistan found high baseline levels of willingness to trust another community member with financial transactions (95 percent and 85 percent of respondents, respectively) and membership in at least one social group (75 percent in Sierra Leone) (Casey et al. 2013, Beath et al. 2013). Third, evaluators use varying definitions of social cohesion and may not be using the most context-appropriate tools to measure these concepts. Fourth, in many fragile,

> 32 See Chatterjee, Gassier, and Myint (2022) for a discussion on diagnosing gaps in social cohesion and for a review of evidence on social cohesion interventions in development projects.

> 33 A review of IFAD’s CDD projects also concludes that there is limited evidence to confirm a causal link between CDD and social capital. However, the report states that the participatory planning and capacity-building approach improved the extent to which rural people and their communities meaningfully participated in making local development decisions (IFAD 2020).

34 An RCT of a non-World Bank financed CDD project in Liberia found that the project reduced social tension and improved individuals’ trust in community leadership (Fearon et al. 2009). Individuals living in CDD communities were also 7.5 percent more likely than those in control villages to cooperate with their neighbors to solve community problems.

35 In Indonesia, the CDD approach effectively resolved any increased tensions (Barron et al. 2011).

36 It is possible that communities with low intra-community trust are less likely to be targeted by CDD projects or that measures of trust are not picking up intra-community conflict.

18