Abstract
Achieving broad-based socio-economic development requires interventions that bridge disciplines, strategies, and stakeholders. Effective sustained progress requires more than simply an accumulation of sector projects, and poverty reduction, individual wellbeing, community development, and societal advancement do not fall neatly into sectoral categories. However, researchers and practitioners recognize key operational challenges to achieving effective integration that stem from the structures and processes associated with the current practice of international development. Integration calls for the intentional linking of intervention designs, implementation, and evaluation across sectors and disciplines to achieve mutually reinforcing outcomes. In this report, we summarize the results of a study we conducted to explore the challenges facing governance programs that integrate with sector interventions to achieve governance outcomes and contribute to sector outcomes. Through a review of policy documents and project reports from recent integrated governance programs and interviews with donor and practitioner staff, we found three integrated governance programming variants, an emphasis on citizen and government collaboration to improve service delivery, interventions that serve as the glue between sectors, and a balancing act for indicators to measure contribution to sectoral outcomes. Our analysis identified four key success factors: contextual readiness, the application of learning and adapting approaches, donor support, and recognition of the limitations of integrated governance. We then discuss recommendations and implications and for answering the challenge of integrating governance and sector programming to achieve development outcomes.
Reference35 articles.
1. 1. Hirschman AO. Development projects observed. Washington (DC): Brookings Institution Press; 1967.
2. 2. Brinkerhoff DW, Wetterberg A. Governance and sector outcomes: making the connections. RTI Press Publication No. PB-0019-1809. RTI Press; 2018. https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2018.pb.0019.1809
3. 3. Kumar K. A.I.D.'s experience with integrated rural development projects. Program evaluation report No. 19. Washington (DC): USAID; 1987 Jul. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAL095.PDF
4. 4. Lele U. The design of rural development: lessons from Africa. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University; 1975.
5. 5. Masset E. Integrated development: past and present. IDS Bull 2018;49(4). Available from: https://bulletin.ids.ac.uk/index.php/idsbo/article/view/2994/Online%20article