community politics. But this variable, in conjunction with the targeting results, suggests that while the poor participate they do not necessarily obtain their priority projects. This raises the possibility that the non-poor may benefit more from participation than the poor.

The picture that emerges about targeting and participation in the JSIF process is, therefore, quite clear. Participation seems to have been restricted to a small group of active individuals who were close to the community leaders and were highly motivated. The entire process is best characterized as benevolent capture. It was not a broad based community driven process but pushed and activated by a few local leaders who nevertheless seemed to be doing it for reasons that benefited the community. Their private reasons for doing so are unclear, but obtaining the JSIF project clearly enhanced their stature within the community. In Arnett Gardens, we have a special case where participation was practically non-existent and the entire process was driven by outsiders - in that sense it could be called informed top down. Arnett Gardens was also the best targeted of the projects in that it attempted to address the most important concern of the vast majority of community members. New Valley/Orange, as shown in the qualitative section, was also well targeted in that the community received a project that addressed its most pressing need - a good road. The other projects in our sample, on the other hand, were extremely poorly targeted and would have performed abysmally in a vote. Moreover, targeting also seems to have not been pro-poor with better educated and better networked individuals much more likely to receive their preferred project. One reason for the education effect, however, was that three of the five projects in our sample are school renovations which are likely to have been favored by more educated members of the community. However, ex-ante only 20 per cent of respondents would have preferred another project. Therefore, while the CDD process may have been exclusionary with poor ex-ante targeting, once the project had been completed and was functioning most in the community seemed satisfied by the choice.

We now shift focus to examining the impact of the social fund project on the community. We will use data from both the JSIF and non-JSIF communities trimming observations outside the common support of the propensity score from both samples. Each outcome variable that we look at will be examined in two different ways - cross-tabs (which provide a diff;rence in difference estimator with matched samples when the outcome variable is a retrospective question on changes over time) and difference in difference with propensity-score nearest neighbor matching. We first begin examining the set of outcome variables expressed in terms of changes from five years ago, prior to the introduction of JSIF. Table 9 examines if respondents find it more easy or more difficult to participate in groups or associations of people outside their immediate households. The cross-tabs show a clear JSIF impact, as do the nearest neighbor estimates. The JSIF process clearly seems to make it easier for people to work with other members of the community. However, the nearest neighbor estimates show a significant wealth effect suggesting that JSIF may have created more collective action capacity among the rich than among the poor which against suggests an 31