In post independent Kenya, Harambee which translates to ‘let’s pull together’ became a symbol of unity, transcending divisions, defining the African philosophy of generosity and ‘togetherness’. This African philosophy is deeply ingrained in most African societies from South Africa’s ‘Ubuntu’ to Tanzania’s ‘Ujamaa’ and Uganda’s ‘Obumu’. Over the years, different forms of collective action have taken root in African communities, sometimes with the involvement of other actors such as the government and development institutions. It is common to find community members coming together for a common goal, sometimes to implement development projects to achieve public goods. This can be through activities such as erecting bridges, building a school, raising school fees for community members, fundraising to build a church or a mosque, raising funds to settle hospital bills and so forth. The goal of these activities is usually intended towards improving the social-economic wellbeing of community members. These members coalesce on a common goal, pooling together their resources and skills to achieve a goal. In this article, we will unpack the nuances in community driven development from one of our recent projects. Using a behavioral approach, seek to drive an understanding of what drives collective action in community projects. We will also attempt to answer what limits other people from participating in these projects despite the assumed benefits that would come to them.
In 2023 we (Busara) signed a contract with Spark Microgrants to implement a community driven development project. Leveraging our expertise in applying behavioral science principles, we conceptualized the Facilitated Collective Action Process (FCAP) project in Uganda and Rwanda. From the onset, we knew that it was not going to be easy, but we also knew that to achieve impact, time and patience were of the essence. We also understood that community engagement needs a clear context to understand the needs, priorities and cultural nuances of different communities. First, we had to understand the principles of community driven development (CDD). Our second and most important assignment was then to integrate our expertise in behavioural science to enhance the effectiveness of this project.
To take you through this journey, we begin by unpacking some concepts. Community-Driven Development as defined by the World Bank is a form of development assistance that seeks to give communities control over key decisions during the implementation of a community project. The concept gained prominence in the World Bank’s Poverty Reduction Strategy and became a common framework for development practitioners as a method of empowering local communities with the tools they need to end poverty. In its most basic form, CDD programs empower local communities to identify, implement, and sustain development initiatives tailored to their needs.
Through our research collaboration with Spark Microgrants, we roll out the Facilitated Collective Action Process (FCAP) in Uganda and Rwanda to understand the subtle interplay of social norms, cognitive biases, and structural constraints that shape how individuals engage with collective programs. FCAP should be seen as a form of community driven development program. In this program, we sought to support inclusive village planning with a seed grant to equip community members with the tools to achieve self-identified goals by facilitating regular town-hall style meetings, aimed at building durable livelihoods while strengthening social cohesion, civic engagement, and women’s representation in leadership in selected communities.
What was unique about FCAP?
For one thing, through behavior research and capacity strengthening FCAP sought to empower people to take charge of their own development as envisioned under the CDD programs. But what happens when participation is limited, would the impact be achieved or would it be limited? These were some of the challenges we sought to understand. While initially we expected participation to be widespread, it turned out that it was not a simple answer. For another thing, we sought to answer why some community members were eager to join CDD programs while others hesitated or opted out entirely. To answer these questions, we had to understand the behavioural patterns that can shape individual and collective agency– and the willingness to participate in collective decision making. Our research studies in both Uganda and Rwanda were aimed at utilizing concepts from behavioral science and existing social and behavioral change strategies to design interventions that were tailored to increase participation in the FCAP project. We thus employed a three-phased approach to identify behavioral barriers and levers influencing collective participation i.e. understanding the context, co-designing interventions with stakeholders and rapid-testing.
In the first phase which we called the “understand phase”, we conducted in-depth interviews with 100 respondents in Uganda and 60 in Rwanda. This provided a comprehensive understanding of participation trends and behavioral influences. This approach follows Busara’s Align, Understand, Design, Assess and Share or the ‘AUDAS’ model, a behavioral approach to development programs (Jang et al 2024). The results from the interviews showed that some people joined the FCAP program right away, drawn by the promise of financial security, improved livelihoods, and stronger community networks while others remained skeptical, influenced by misconceptions such as doubts about funding sources, foreign influence, and religious concerns about specific types of projects being implemented such as pig rearing which goes against the Islamic faith. Cognitive efforts also played a role i.e unclear information about the program or complex registration which discouraged participation.
Self-efficacy was another factor. People with confidence in their abilities were more likely to engage, while those who doubted their skills required for the project hesitated or remained disengaged. Social norms heavily influenced participation, with family, community leaders, and peers shaping individuals’ decisions to participate. The results showed that if a trusted person within an individual’s network endorsed the FCAP project, that individual was more likely to join. However, active and meaningful engagement was deterred by past negative experiences with unmet promises in development initiatives, spread by word of mouth in the community. Loss aversion, which is a tendency for people to feel the pain of a loss more strongly than the pleasure of a gain, complicated engagement in FCAP activities. What we saw was that individuals feared losing their financial contributions to the community savings groups more than they hoped for potential project gains. This is despite concepts such as Village Saving & Loan Associations (VSALs) ingrained in the community psyche.
In some cases, we found that distrust in CDD programs was rather a matter of hesitation. The effort required to commit to regular meetings, distance to the meeting venue, financial commitments and long-term group activities competes with the pressing realities of daily survival such as going to the market to sell wares or looking for jobs. For many, time is scarce. Women, who are often the backbone of community groups, found their participation constrained by household responsibilities while farmers prioritize their work in the fields over community meetings, particularly during peak planting and harvesting seasons. Meanwhile, younger members of the community struggled to see the long-term value in participation, opting instead for quick and immediate financial gains elsewhere. And then there are the elders, individuals with deep roots in the community who felt too physically or financially constrained to take part in community projects.
The second phase of our project we sought to tackle these challenges, working alongside staff from Spark including Trainers, District Coordinators, Research Officers, and others as well as local leaders (such as Community Development Officers and Parish chiefs in Uganda). Community members also participated in the co-design workshops to design solutions tailored to tackle the barriers highlighted in phase 1. Participants emphasized the need for strong leadership to ensure accountability, fairness, and continued mobilization efforts. Choosing the right leaders, particularly those who are transparent and engaged, was seen as essential to maintaining trust and meaningful participation. This sentiment is particularly important when one considers that under most African societies, collective decision making invokes self and collective agency. Harambee and other community based approaches rely on collective decisions that were made informally and involved all members (Ngau, 1987).
To further boost participation, community members in the FCAP project recommended flexible meeting schedules that would accommodate farming seasons and household responsibilities, making it easier for more people, especially women and farmers, to engage consistently. They also stressed the need for flexibility in group savings and loan payments, suggesting staggered payment plans or alternative contribution models to ease economic burdens on members. These sentiments suggest that if done correctly, the group savings models can improve members economic welfare and mirrors findings by Casey (2018) and Barron et al., (2024) who observed that CDD programs can improve economic well being of participants and their participation.
Continuous education and awareness were also highlighted as crucial. Participants suggested ongoing training on financial management, project sustainability, and the long-term benefits of FCAP. Regular communication and sensitization efforts would help dispel misconceptions and keep members motivated. They also stressed the need for social reinforcement, suggesting the use of community influencers, testimonials, and successful project alumni to encourage hesitant individuals to join and stay engaged. Sustainability planning was another priority, with members advocating for strict adherence to community rules and regulations to ensure FCAP projects remained beneficial even after Spark exited the community. They proposed mechanisms for monitoring assets, such as livestock, and suggested that local government officials can play a role in overseeing community-driven initiatives long-term. Their suggestions validate Barron et al., (2024) who observed that governments are increasingly partnering with communities to deliver basic services using community-driven programs.
In the last phase of the project, we held co-design workshops with different groups to deliberate on the most appropriate intervention mechanisms. The ideas from these workshops were prioritized by Spark and Busara teams based on desirability, impact, feasibility, novelty, and uniqueness, before moving to prototyping. We developed prototypes of prioritized interventions and used rapid testing to validate them, gathering feedback from community members and local leaders to assess desirability and refine the solutions. Through focus group discussions (FGDs) with participants in Uganda and Rwanda, we explored whether these prototypes addressed barriers to participation in community-driven initiatives like FCAP. Participants were given prototype images and asked to share their thoughts, preferences, anticipated challenges and suggestions for improvement, helping us refine the solutions to better align with community needs and perceptions.
Progressive project benefits were first priority in Rwanda, where short-term incentives would be introduced alongside long-term gains to keep members engaged. By providing early, tangible benefits, participants believed more people would remain committed to the program. Furthermore, flexible payment plans were first priority in Uganda, where staggered payment schedules would allow members to contribute in a more flexible manner to the community savings and loans. This would enhance financial participation and commitment to the program. Storytelling and success narratives were also emphasized as a powerful tool in both countries. Sharing testimonials from successful FCAP members and using community influencers to spread positive experiences could counter misconceptions and build trust. Participants suggested organizing regular storytelling sessions where members could share their journeys, challenges, and achievements.
Capacity-building workshops were another feasible intervention, focusing on leadership skills, financial literacy, and project management to empower communities to sustain their initiatives beyond Spark’s involvement. Community engagement was also prioritized, with ideas such as interactive community meetings, a buddy system pairing new members with experienced participants, recognition events to reward commitment and milestones, and a community challenge campaign to foster friendly competition, further driving motivation and accountability. Currently, flexible payment plans and capacity-building workshops are being tested in Bulambuli, Uganda, to determine their effectiveness in real-world settings.
Overall, our findings show that encouraging participation in community-driven development (CDD) requires more than just funding projects or mobilizing people, it demands a deep understanding of human behavior, trust-building, and sustained engagement. For practitioners and policymakers, the challenge is not just in designing programs but in ensuring that communities see value in them and remain committed over time.
A good place to start is to understand that already, different forms of community action exist within African philosophy, but the application of behavioral mechanisms is limited, and in our opinion, can unlock meaningful participation if exploited well. For instance, beyond individual incentives, social influences play a crucial role in participation. People are more likely to engage when they see others benefiting, making storytelling and testimonials powerful tools for persuasion. Policymakers can support CDD programs by strengthening local leadership, promoting participatory decision-making, and ensuring long-term sustainability through training and accountability measures. Community members are also more likely to participate when they believe in the legitimacy of a program and the integrity of its leaders. Development practitioners must work closely with respected local figures who can serve as advocates, addressing misconceptions and reinforcing program benefits. Flexibility is also key, CDD initiatives should accommodate diverse schedules and responsibilities, making participation accessible to different groups such as women, farmers, and young people. Finally, immediate, tangible benefits, such as milestone-based rewards and small incentives, can keep members engaged while reinforcing long-term impact.
When communities feel like co-creators rather than passive beneficiaries, development programs can evolve into lasting movements that drive meaningful and sustainable change.
Project pictures
References
Barron, P., Fernandes, P., Winkler, S., & Woolcock, M. (2024). A Learning Agenda for Community-Driven Development. World Bank.
Casey, K. (2018). Radical decentralization: does community-driven development work?. Annual Review of Economics, 10(1), 139-163.
Jang, C., Koki, E., Nyaga, R., Okafor, A., Singh, J., Vang, A., & Wendel, S. (2024). The Busara toolkit: leveraging behavioral science for development. Busara Groundwork No. 10 (Research Agenda). Nairobi: Busara, 2024. DOI: doi.
org/10.62372/WQSB6195
Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2003). Evaluating community-based and community-driven development: A critical review of the evidence. Policy Research Working Paper, 3209.
Ngau, P. M. (1987). Tensions in Empowerment: The Experience of the “Harambee” (Self-Help) Movement in Kenya. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 35(3), 523–538. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1153928
