Butterworth, DavidDale, Pamela2017-06-162017-06-162011-07https://hdl.handle.net/10986/27255What happens when the state's vision and expanding reach bring it into contact with traditional value systems and governance structures? In what circumstances can the distribution of resources in a fragile society prevent-or exacerbate-conflict within and between communities? How do state expansion and public spending impact upon societal expectations of the state and state legitimacy? This report examines these questions through the lens of access, claiming, and decision making in government-sponsored community development programs. The findings illustrate the hurdles faced by government and development actors operating in pluralistic societies, and provide input on how local governance and decision making might be incorporated to enrich programming. This report aims to provide the government of Timor-Leste, particularly those responsible for decentralization, community development, and local governance planning, with information to inform their determination of an appropriate mix of models for local development. The relative priority the government will ultimately give to these different models, partly a trade-off between speed and depth, will impact on the way in which development and local governance are understood and taken on board by rural communities. This report finds that the achievement of the dual goals of state legitimacy and sustainable, effective local development hinges in large part on the willingness of state officials (and the donors that support them) to engage productively with communities and locally legitimate customary systems of authority.en-USCC BY 3.0 IGOACCOUNTABILITYARCHITECTURAL DESIGNAUTHORITYBLOCK GRANTSBUDGET EXECUTIONCITIZENCITIZEN PARTICIPATIONCITIZENSCITIZENSHIPCIVIC EDUCATIONCIVIL SOCIETYCIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONCOMMUNITIESCOMMUNITY CONSULTATIONCOMMUNITY DECISION MAKINGCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTSCOMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURECOMMUNITY INVOLVEMENTCOMMUNITY LEADERSCOMMUNITY LEVELCOMMUNITY MEETINGSCOMMUNITY MEMBERSCOMMUNITY OWNERSHIPCOMMUNITY PARTICIPATIONCOMMUNITY RESOURCESCOMMUNITY-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENTCONSENSUSCONSULTATIONCORRUPTIONCOUNCILSCOUNTRYSIDEDATA COLLECTIONDECENTRALIZATIONDECENTRALIZATION PROCESSDECISION MAKINGDECISION-MAKINGDECISION-MAKING PROCESSDECISION-MAKING PROCESSESDECISIONMAKINGDEMOCRACYDEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLESDEMOCRATIC RIGHTSDEMOCRATIC STATEDESCRIPTIONDEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONSDISTRICTDISTRICT ADMINISTRATIONDISTRICT ADMINISTRATIONSDISTRICT ADMINISTRATORDISTRICT ASSEMBLIESDISTRICT ASSEMBLYDISTRICT EDUCATIONDISTRICT HEADQUARTERSDISTRICT LEVELDISTRICT LEVELSDISTRICT OFFICESDISTRICT-LEVELDISTRICTSECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTEMPLOYMENT GENERATIONEXECUTIONFACILITATORSFEMALEFINANCIAL MANAGEMENTFINANCIAL RESOURCESFINANCIAL SUPPORTGENDERGOOD GOVERNANCEGOVERNANCE ENVIRONMENTGOVERNANCE OBJECTIVESGOVERNMENT OFFICIALSGOVERNMENT STRUCTURESHOUSEHOLDSHOUSESHUMAN RESOURCESINTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTKEY ACTORSKINGDOMSLEGITIMACYLIVING STANDARDSLOBBYINGLOCAL AUTHORITIESLOCAL COMMUNITIESLOCAL COMMUNITYLOCAL GOVERNANCELOCAL GOVERNMENTLOCAL INDUSTRYLOCAL KNOWLEDGELOCAL LEVELSMERITOCRACYMINISTRY OF JUSTICEMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTSMUNICIPALITIESNATIONAL POLICYNATIONSNATURAL RESOURCESOCCUPATIONPAMPHLETSPARTICIPATORY APPROACHESPARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENTPARTICIPATORY PLANNINGPOLITICAL PARTIESPOLITICAL PARTYPOLITICAL POWERPOSTERSPRESIDENCYPRIMARY SCHOOLPROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONPUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONPUBLIC SECTORPUBLIC SPENDINGREFERENDUMREHABILITATIONREVOLUTIONRURAL COMMUNITIESRURAL DEVELOPMENTSERVICE DELIVERYSETTLEMENTSETTLEMENT PATTERNSSKILLED WORKERSSOCIAL CAPITALSOCIAL DEVELOPMENTSOCIAL ORGANIZATIONSOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTSTATE ADMINISTRATIONSTATE AUTHORITIESSTATE AUTHORITYSTATE BUDGETSTATE INSTITUTIONSSUBDISTRICT OFFICIALSSUBNATIONALSUBNATIONAL GOVERNMENTSSUBNATIONAL LEVELSTRADITIONAL LEADERSTRAININGSTRANSPARENCYVILLAGEVILLAGESVOTINGYOUNG WOMENYOUTHYOUTH DEVELOPMENTYOUTH REPRESENTATIVESReportWorld Bank10.1596/27255