Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract:

Mothers' Union Uganda has been working on an iterative participatory process of Church-led community mobilisation called EAGLE based on a co-financing and shared dividends model. This paper argues that this is a stronger model for sustainability than a traditional donor-recipient model.

Paper long abstract:

The lack of scope and lack of multi-causality in many Cost Benefit Analyses, as identified by Chadburn, O et al. (2013), leads to linear assumptions about programmatic interventions. CBA measures the hypothesis of a theory of change and assumes validity in complex systems of societies, when the scope of a CBA prevents such nuance. However, many of these hypotheses are tested in the programmatic cycle, refined and understood as they are contextualised.

This paper is based on four years evidence from our work, EAGLE, which has three core process outputs, firstly, individuals are encouraged to undertake an appreciative enquiry to consider their worldview and cultural norms. Secondly, the Church, as the first cohort of beneficiaries, develop a communicative space through the use of bible studies. Thirdly, they work together with the community to develop local priorities and solutions through a third-person enquiry participatory action research approach.

Whose cost? This process in Uganda has been co-financed with the community. External funding was the seed to support development and training. However, community initiatives and local impact has been funded entirely by communities directly or indirectly. Whose benefit? Usually CBA is for external approval; however, in a co-investment model, when each party invests, they declare that the intervention will reap a dividend. Whose analysis? Analysis is too often extractive by external consultants, however, in a participatory model, analysis is key to the empowerment of communities. In the analysis, communities determine what parameters need analysis in order to reap the highest benefit.