Working Paper 234 December 2010 Capability Traps ? The Mechanisms of Persistent Implementation Failure

Many countries remain stuck in conditions of low productivity that many call “poverty traps.” Economic growth is only one aspect of development; another key dimension of development is the expansion of the administrative capability of the state, the capability of governments to affect the course of events by implementing policies and programs. We use a variety of empirical indicators of administrative capability to show that many countries remain in “state capability traps” in which the implementation capability of the state is both severely limited and improving (if at all) only very slowly. At their current pace of progress countries like Haiti or Afghanistan or Liberia would take hundreds (if not thousands) of years to reach the capability of a country like Singapore and decades to reach even a moderate capability country like India. We explore how this can be so. That is, we do not attempt to explain why countries remain in capability traps; this would require a historical, political and social analysis uniquely applied to each country. Rather, we focus on how countries manage to engage in the domestic and international logics of “development” and yet consistently fail to acquire capability. What are the techniques of failure? Two stand out. First, ‘big development’ encourages progress through importing standard responses to predetermined problems. This encourages isomorphic mimicry as a technique of failure: the adoption of the forms of other functional states and organizations which camouflages a persistent lack of function. Second, an inadequate theory of developmental change reinforces a fundamental mismatch between expectations and the actual capacity of prevailing administrative systems to implement even the most routine administrative tasks. This leads to premature load bearing, in which wishful thinking about the pace of progress and unrealistic expectations about the level and rate of improvement of capability lead to stresses and demands on systems that cause capability to weaken (if not collapse). We conclude with some suggestive directions for sabotaging these techniques of failure. www.cgdev.org Lant Pritchett, Michael Woolcock, and Matt Andrews Capability Traps? The Mechanisms of Persistent Implementation Failure Lant Pritchett CGD Non-Resident Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School Michael Woolcock World Bank Matt Andrews Harvard Kennedy School The authors thank seminar participants at the Center for Global Development, Harvard, USAID, and the World Bank, and Chris Blattman and Charles Kenny for many helpful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimers apply. Email addresses for correspondence: [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]. The Center for Global Development is grateful for contributions from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation in supportof this work. Lant Pritchett, Michael Woolcock, and Matt Andrews. 2010. “Capability Traps? The Mechanisms of Persistent Implementation Failure.” CGD Working Paper 234. Washington, D.C.: Center for Global Development. http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1424651 Center for Global Development 1800 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 202.416.4000 (f ) 202.416.4050 www.cgdev.org The Center for Global Development is an independent, nonprofit policy research organization dedicated to reducing global poverty and inequality and to making globalization work for the poor. Use and dissemination of this Working Paper is encouraged; however, reproduced copies may not be used for commercial purposes. Further usage is permitted under the terms of the Creative Commons License. The views expressed in CGD Working Papers are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the board of directors or funders of the Center for Global Development.