Participation in project design (Hypothesis 9)

The CfW programmes in Jordan let the members of local communities participate in the design of their various projects in different ways and to different degrees. Some programmes plan their activities in a completely top-down and centralised manner without any possibility of community participation while, at the other extreme, some programmes even hold open councils inviting all community members to participate in the discussion on the shape of future activities. Unfortunately, we were not able to analyse the different forms of citizen participation systematically but we nevertheless asked our interviewees their opinions on them. The answers provide some support – at least in regard to vertical trust – for Hypothesis 9, which suggests that community participation in project design increases the positive effects on social cohesion.

Both CfW participants and non-participants confirmed that they knew which CfW programmes had given what kind of opportunities to community members to participate in the planning of their local activities, and they appreciated all attempts made by the programmes in this regard. For example, a Syrian man in Kafr Asad remembered well that “the municipality came and asked, ‘What is your opinion if we should get a German firm to open job opportunities?’ [… They] informed some of us, and then the news spread around the village” (46, non-participant, Kafr Asad). A Syrian woman confirmed: “Many meetings were held where everything was explained. We have heard from Najmeh, have heard about another project in Irbid” (25, participant, Kafr Asad).

In the example of Al-Azraq, the cooperation between the implementing agency and the donor began early on:

We [a committee of representatives from the municipality, the implementing agency and local charity organisations] planned together. Our unit had developed a strategic plan that we presented to AAH [Action against Hunger]. We had learned from USAID [the United States Agency for International Development] how to strategise. That is why we succeeded in the collaboration. (85, local expert, Al-Azraq)

The same committee was later also responsible for the organisation of participatory events and the recruitment of CfW participants (85, local expert, Al-Azraq).

In other places, such as Deyr ‘Allā and Kafr Ṣawm, all key decisions on CfW project design were taken by a small groups of representatives of the municipality, the responsible ministry, and the donor agency (6, local expert, Deyr ‘Allā). Participatory events were held but could only discuss options

“to improve and develop the [existing] programmes” (5, local expert, Deyr

‘Allā). The director of the implementing agency of CfW programmes in Deyr ‘Allā explained:

There is a way of communicating with the municipality. But only with a small group of people. I pick these people myself. They can speak up and then tell what kind of infrastructure they want. These seven representatives of the community meet and all of them talk about what they need. Thereby, these people provide the municipality with the information that it needs. (6, local expert, Deyr ‘Allā)

And in some places, the local authorities were heavily criticised for not providing more possibilities for citizens’ participation in project design. A local expert from Faqū’a said, for example:

We wish to have more say in where the projects take place. It was not clear to me what power we have. It was not even clear who was the decision-maker.

We did not know whom to contact to ask for changes. Some decisions were taken on WhatsApp; I was not sure about the legal status of these decisions.

Were we breaking the law, if we did not accept the decisions? (189, local expert, Deyr ‘Allā)

The range of experiences can be explained by the fact that specific CfW activities offered different starting points for participatory processes. CfW creating public spaces or other public goods that can be shaped according to people’s wishes are suited best for participatory events as people can connect to the infrastructure created (282, GIZ; focus group East Amman). Other CfW activities, such as road maintenance or waste collection, offer hardly any design choices that the public could be consulted on.

7 Policy recommendations

The findings of our research show that, in addition to their direct/

individual effects, CfW programmes can have noticeable positive indirect/

community effects. Many other studies have shown that CfW programmes, if well designed, are able to reap a triple dividend: They can (i) generate employment and income for refugees and other vulnerable groups; (ii) help

fill gaps in infrastructure; and (iii) extend the skills, the self-esteem and the motivation of their beneficiaries. However, as our evidence also shows, CfW programmes can also contribute to another triple dividend at the community level, fostering (iv) social cohesion; (v) local economic development; and (vi) gender equality in addition, and perhaps in particular, in the context of flight and migration.

In this section, we discuss policy recommendations specifically in relation to the following questions:

• Are CfW programmes generally recommendable as an instrument of support in the contexts of migration and conflict? Are other instruments recommendable alternatives?

• Are there trade-offs between indirect and direct effects of CfW programmes?

• Who should implement CfW programmes?

• How can the CfW programmes in Jordan be optimised in the short term?

• How should the CfW programmes in Jordan be dealt with in the medium to long term?

The following four subsections offer answers to these questions, based on the findings of our research with its said limitations. These can be summarised as follows:

• CfW can also work in the contexts of flight and migration. In such contexts, the instrument may even be particularly recommendable because of its more indirect effects. Often, when social cohesion and local economic development are threatened by crises such as flight and migration, communities in conflict-affected countries can benefit from carefully designed CfW interventions (subsection 7.1). Thereby, the known trade-offs between the direct effects of CfW programmes are more profound than those between their indirect effects; thus, adding community-related targets to the list of desired outcomes is not a zero-sum game (subsection 7.2).

• The international donor community may consider drawing up new CfW programmes, but it could also be recommendable for national governments to set up CfW programmes themselves – possibly with co-funding from external donors – and thereby safeguard the coherence of social policies targeted to nationals and immigrants (subsection 7.3).

• For Jordan itself, we recommend that CfW programmes are continued, but slightly refined in their design (subsection 7.4). Sooner or later they will have to be carefully transformed from being a humanitarian aid to a development policy instrument. Possibly, the government of Jordan can play a more active role in this process in the future (subsection 7.5).

7.1 Are CfW programmes generally recommendable as