The World Bank and social capital: Lessons from ten rural development projects in the Philippines and Mexico

Social capital is widely recognized as one of the few sources of capital available to the poor, yet the processes by which development policies affect the accumulation of that social capital are not well understood. The World Bank, through its funding of development projects, affects the institutional environments for the accumulation of such social capital. The question is how to determine whether that institutional context is enabling, and to what degree. This paper compares ten recent World Bank-funded rural development projects in Mexico and the Philippines to explore how the processes of project design and implementation influence the institutional environments for the accumulation of horizontal, vertical, and intersectoral forms of pro-poor social capital. The findings have conceptual and policy implications for understanding the political dynamics of creating enabling environments for social capital accumulation by the poor.     

Prospects for health impact assessment in the United States: new and improved environmental impact assessment or something different?

Health impact assessment (HIA) has been advanced as a means of bringing potential health impacts to the attention of policy makers, particularly in sectors where health impacts may not otherwise be considered. This article examines lessons for HIA in the United States from the related and relatively well-developed field of environmental impact assessment (EIA). We reviewed the EIA literature and conducted twenty phone interviews with EIA professionals. Successes of EIA cited by respondents included integration of environmental goals into decision making, improved planning, and greater transparency and public involvement. Reported shortcomings included the length and complexity of EIA documents, limited and adversarial public participation, and an emphasis on procedure over substance. Presently, EIAs consider few, if any, health outcomes. Respondents differed on the prospects for HIA. Most agreed that HIA could contribute to EIA in several areas, including assessment of cumulative impacts and impacts to environmental justice. Reasons given for not incorporating HIA into EIA were uncertainties about interpreting estimated health impacts, that EIA documents would become even longer and more complicated, and that HIA would gain little from the procedural and legal emphasis in EIA. We conclude that for HIA to advance, whether as part of or separate from EIA, well-formulated methodologies need to be developed and tested in real-world situations. When possible, HIA should build on the methods that have been utilized successfully in EIA. The most fruitful avenue is demonstration projects that test, refine, and demonstrate different methods and models to maximize their utility and acceptance.     

Comparing Models of Strategic Choice: The Role of Uncertainty and Signaling

e-mail: wand{at}stanford.edu Testing the fit of competing equilibrium solutions to extensiveform games crucially depends on assumptions about the distributionof player types. To illustrate the importance of these assumptionsfor differentiating standard statistical models of strategicchoice, I draw on a game previously analyzed by Lewis and Schultz(2003). The differences that they highlight between a pair ofperfect Bayesian equilibrium and quantal response equilibriummodels are not produced by signaling and updating dynamics asclaimed, but are instead produced by different assumptions aboutthe distribution of player types. The method of analysis developedand the issues raised are applicable to a broad range of structuralmodels of conflict and bargaining.