Why do development projects succeed or fail?
Development projects are unsuccessful for three main reasons. They fail when they employ top-down
approaches, utilise modernist thinking and due to the various barriers between project managers and the
communities that they are trying to serve. Examples of unsuccessful development projects that will be
discussed include various NGOs in Haiti, a goat project in Brazil as well as others in Malaysia and India.
Successful development projects have three key characteristics. They make use of bottom-up approaches
driven by community members, an assets based approach and longterm accountability and support. Various
examples of successful development projects can be used to substantiate these statements. These include
projects in Jagna and Haiti.
Unsuccessful development projects make use of top down approaches. A top down approach is characterised
by an authoritative outside force that imposes its own views onto a community. In a top down situation, the
opinions and ideas of the project’s beneficiaries are not taken into account. External people assume that they
have superior knowledge. They, therefore, assume that they do not need the buy-in or even involvement of
the people that they are allegedly trying to help (Cavalcanti 2007, 87). Zanotti criticises the top down
approaches that were utilised in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake (2010). Many NGOs intervened to help Haiti
redevelop and recover after this disaster. Many of these NGOs were completely unsuccessful in their efforts
because they made use of top down approaches that were authoritative in nature. Many NGOs tried to take
over the role that the Haitian government should have been playing. This was a problem in itself because it
prevented the government from being able to manage the situation in Haiti (756). An even greater issue in
general is that NGOs obviously have no mandate or accountability to the people they are trying to help (759).
This dichotomy is harmful because the people of Haiti were not given the opportunity to develop their own
strategies and rebuild their own government. This meant that after the NGOs left Haiti, there was a gap in
administration and leadership (757). This resulted in Haiti being unable to effectively be managed by its own
government after the NGOs had left which has resulted in long term issues.
Modernist thinking, secondly, has led to unsuccessful development projects. The modernist school of
thinking believes that development has the single goal of achieving modernity. It maintains that communities
can only be successful if they strive towards becoming technologically advanced or ‘modern’. This attitude
completely disregards the viewpoint of community members who may place value on other community
, aspects such as culture. This narrow minded definition of development underpins many development projects
globally. Cavalcanti supports this viewpoint by stating that development projects that utilise ethnocentric
thinking tend to fail as the community feels alienated (2007, 85). Cavalcanti specifically investigates a goat
keeping project in Brazil that was unsuccessful. The community was uninvolved in the initial planning of
this project which meant that their needs were not understood by the project organises. The project was
deemed a failure in 2002 after three years because the goat farmers decided that their farms and communities
had a higher quality of life before the project was started (2007, 86).
A further reason as to why development projects may fail regards barriers that cannot be overcome by project
organisers. Barriers could be social, bureaucratic or cultural in nature. Typically these barriers are due to a
lack of communication between the development project managers and community members. Daly and
Brassard substantiate this through their discussion of a development project in Kampung Jawa (2011, 523).
This project was run bureaucratically meaning that community members did not have a direct channel of
communication with the project managers (2011, 529). Furthermore, the community was distanced from the
project managers due to unfamiliarity of their approaches. This barrier meant that community members were
unable to truly engage with the project (530). A further example of barriers hindering the progress of a
development project can be seen in India. An HIV project that aimed to protect sex workers in India was
unsuccessful largely due to social barriers (Narayanan, Vinneetha, Jarangan, Bharadwaji, 2015, 610). Project
managers were not able to understand the nature of these marginalised groups in India for two reasons.
Firstly, local experts were not consulted meaning that the community perspective on this issue was not
incorporated into the design of the project (2015, 612). Secondly, the external experts that were consulted did
not have an adequate understanding of Indian society (2015, 612). Although this project did aim to support
marginalised groups in India (such as homosexuals and sex workers), the structural stigmatisation of these
groups was not comprehended by project managers. India’s culture surrounding HIV and sex workers could
not adequately be understood by external people alone (2015, 619). This meant that the HIV education
project was not accepted by society and was deemed a failure.
Successful development projects, on the other hand, are community driven and designed. Bottom up
development projects tend to be successful because community knowledge is utilised and the actual needs of
Development projects are unsuccessful for three main reasons. They fail when they employ top-down
approaches, utilise modernist thinking and due to the various barriers between project managers and the
communities that they are trying to serve. Examples of unsuccessful development projects that will be
discussed include various NGOs in Haiti, a goat project in Brazil as well as others in Malaysia and India.
Successful development projects have three key characteristics. They make use of bottom-up approaches
driven by community members, an assets based approach and longterm accountability and support. Various
examples of successful development projects can be used to substantiate these statements. These include
projects in Jagna and Haiti.
Unsuccessful development projects make use of top down approaches. A top down approach is characterised
by an authoritative outside force that imposes its own views onto a community. In a top down situation, the
opinions and ideas of the project’s beneficiaries are not taken into account. External people assume that they
have superior knowledge. They, therefore, assume that they do not need the buy-in or even involvement of
the people that they are allegedly trying to help (Cavalcanti 2007, 87). Zanotti criticises the top down
approaches that were utilised in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake (2010). Many NGOs intervened to help Haiti
redevelop and recover after this disaster. Many of these NGOs were completely unsuccessful in their efforts
because they made use of top down approaches that were authoritative in nature. Many NGOs tried to take
over the role that the Haitian government should have been playing. This was a problem in itself because it
prevented the government from being able to manage the situation in Haiti (756). An even greater issue in
general is that NGOs obviously have no mandate or accountability to the people they are trying to help (759).
This dichotomy is harmful because the people of Haiti were not given the opportunity to develop their own
strategies and rebuild their own government. This meant that after the NGOs left Haiti, there was a gap in
administration and leadership (757). This resulted in Haiti being unable to effectively be managed by its own
government after the NGOs had left which has resulted in long term issues.
Modernist thinking, secondly, has led to unsuccessful development projects. The modernist school of
thinking believes that development has the single goal of achieving modernity. It maintains that communities
can only be successful if they strive towards becoming technologically advanced or ‘modern’. This attitude
completely disregards the viewpoint of community members who may place value on other community
, aspects such as culture. This narrow minded definition of development underpins many development projects
globally. Cavalcanti supports this viewpoint by stating that development projects that utilise ethnocentric
thinking tend to fail as the community feels alienated (2007, 85). Cavalcanti specifically investigates a goat
keeping project in Brazil that was unsuccessful. The community was uninvolved in the initial planning of
this project which meant that their needs were not understood by the project organises. The project was
deemed a failure in 2002 after three years because the goat farmers decided that their farms and communities
had a higher quality of life before the project was started (2007, 86).
A further reason as to why development projects may fail regards barriers that cannot be overcome by project
organisers. Barriers could be social, bureaucratic or cultural in nature. Typically these barriers are due to a
lack of communication between the development project managers and community members. Daly and
Brassard substantiate this through their discussion of a development project in Kampung Jawa (2011, 523).
This project was run bureaucratically meaning that community members did not have a direct channel of
communication with the project managers (2011, 529). Furthermore, the community was distanced from the
project managers due to unfamiliarity of their approaches. This barrier meant that community members were
unable to truly engage with the project (530). A further example of barriers hindering the progress of a
development project can be seen in India. An HIV project that aimed to protect sex workers in India was
unsuccessful largely due to social barriers (Narayanan, Vinneetha, Jarangan, Bharadwaji, 2015, 610). Project
managers were not able to understand the nature of these marginalised groups in India for two reasons.
Firstly, local experts were not consulted meaning that the community perspective on this issue was not
incorporated into the design of the project (2015, 612). Secondly, the external experts that were consulted did
not have an adequate understanding of Indian society (2015, 612). Although this project did aim to support
marginalised groups in India (such as homosexuals and sex workers), the structural stigmatisation of these
groups was not comprehended by project managers. India’s culture surrounding HIV and sex workers could
not adequately be understood by external people alone (2015, 619). This meant that the HIV education
project was not accepted by society and was deemed a failure.
Successful development projects, on the other hand, are community driven and designed. Bottom up
development projects tend to be successful because community knowledge is utilised and the actual needs of
