Chapter 2

ID Projects: Context and Peculiarities

In this chapter, we introduce the concepts of international development and NGOs and we present and discuss the peculiarities of ID projects resulting from our research.

2.1 International Development and NGOs

International development (sometimes referred to as global or world development) is a concept that lacks an acknowledged definition, but it is commonly used to refer to studies and actions seeking to find and implement long-term solutions to world problems related to human development like poverty, healthcare, education, human rights, and the environment. Given this long-term perspective, it is distinct (even if related) to concepts like “disaster relief” and “humanitarian aid” that normally imply a short-term approach.

International development mainly focuses on developing and emerging countries, but its scope is not confined to them and normally considers a world perspective, including also the relationships with developed countries.

International development is a relatively new concept and phenomenon, having started in the second half of the 20th century. International development arises from the need for reconstruction in the immediate aftermath of World War II (e.g., the U.S.-supported Marshall Plan for Europe), the need to support decolonization in many countries and the transition to democracy and free trade in others, and finally, from the desire of Western countries to prevent a new world war and to prevent developing countries from drifting towards communism during the Cold War. These efforts lead to the establishment of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (now part of the World Bank Group) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1944, and the United Nations in 1945. The first two were created at the Bretton Woods Conference to regulate the international monetary and financial order after the conclusion of World War II. The U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt opened the conference stating that:

“The economic health of every country is a proper matter of concern to all its neighbors, near and far.” (Roosevelt, 1944)

The United Nations has in particular played a significant and ever-increasing role with the creation of a number of ad hoc agencies and programs related to development issues such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Food Programme (WFP), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and the International Labour Organization (ILO).

Furthermore, many countries have established ad hoc agencies and programs to support international development. For instance, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was created in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy for administering U.S. civilian foreign aid, while the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) was formed in 1968 by the Canadian government.

Several research fields deal with the theme, including sociology, law, medicine and economics. In particular, development economics is a branch of economics focused on international development and on methods of promoting economic growth, structural change and human development.

The need for international development studies and actions is significant, considering the low level of human development in many countries and regions and the high level of inequality. Statistics such as the Human Development Index (HDI), a composite indicator used to rank countries by level of “human development,” provide clear indications (Figure 2.1).

Furthermore, the moral case for tackling these world problems is compelling when considering specific figures. As reported by the United Nations (2012), the proportion of people living on less than US$1.25 a day was 24% in 2008, the number of under-five deaths worldwide was 7.6 million in 2010 and “the most recent Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates of undernourishment set the mark at 850 million living in hunger in the world in the 2006/2008 period—15.5 percent of the world population”. Furthermore, there are 11 million AIDS orphans in Africa (UNAIDS, 2008), approximately a third of children in Africa suffer brain damage as a result of malnutrition (Maxwell, 2005), and an estimated 863 million people live in slum conditions (United Nations, 2012).

To tackle these problems in September 2000, at a special United Nations assembly to mark the turn of the century, the world’s leaders agreed to eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Even if the International Development landscape is changing and new actors are entering and transforming the mechanisms of global development (e.g., China as emerging donor, south–south cooperation, etc.), the world is still focusing its international development efforts on these MDGs and the role of the most developed countries.

In brief, the eight MDGs are to:

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2. Achieve universal primary education
3. Promote gender equality and empower women
4. Reduce child mortality
5. Improve maternal health
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
7. Ensure environmental sustainability
8. Develop a global partnership for development

The last one of these goals (develop a global partnership for development) suggests that a number of different actors should work together to reach the global development objectives.

In particular, besides the official development assistance (ODA) provided by (mostly developed) countries and their governmental organizations (e.g., USAID, Japan International Cooperation Agency), also corporations and NGOs have an increasing role in reducing poverty and inequality. For instance, the MDGs have defined two targets specifically involving firms: target 8.4 in cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable, essential drugs in developing countries; target 8.5 in cooperation with the private sector, make available benefits of new technologies, especially information and communication technologies (ICTs).

A central role is also acknowledged to NGOs, given their importance in International Development projects, as further explained in the following.

2.1.1 Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

The term non-governmental organization (NGO) was officially introduced in 1950, with Resolution 288 (X) of the United Nations (UN) Economic and Social Council, to refer to those organizations with no governmental affiliation and a consultative status with the UN. However, despite this formal origin and their constant growth, there is lack of consensus on how to define and classify them (e.g., Charlton, 1995; Vakil, 1997). As a matter of fact, the acronym NGO is a “definition by negation”: it suggests what these organizations are not, rather than what they are. Furthermore, in many cases the term is used interchangeably with non-profit organization or even civil society organization and third sector organization.

Without entering in the ongoing complex debate, in this work we adopt the definition proposed by Vakil (1997), expanding on Gordenker and Weiss (1995) definition. In her words, NGOs are:

“Self-governing, private, not-for-profit organizations that are geared to improving the quality of life of disadvantaged people.”

Even if this definition remains quite broad, it allows to highlight the main characteristics of the organizations we are considering, and in particular their focus on human development and poverty reduction.

Furthermore, inside this broad definition, the literature has identified some additional characteristics of NGOs (Raimondi & Antonelli, 2001). First of all, NGOs normally apply a participative approach, involving the beneficiaries in the key aspects of the development process; moreover, they tend to have “democratic” rather than “hierarchic” organization. Finally, they tend to diversify the financing sources in order to avoid being influenced by the sponsors. NGOs can provide different types of help: financial, technical, related to knowledge, or technology transfer.

Today, NGOs have an important role in reaching the poorest populations and providing them with effective help, sometimes with the endorsement of governments (Koch, Dreher, Nunnenkamp, & Thiele, 2009). In 2005 and 2006, the help provided by donors to receiving countries through NGOs grew by 10%; today, 40,000 NGOs are estimated to operate worldwide (Kovach, Neligan, & Burall, 2003). This rising importance is mainly related to three factors: the successes obtained by some NGOs (Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002); the limitations of the governments as helping agents (Hyden, 1998; Lindberg, Voss, & Blackmon, 1998); and the involvement of private citizens (Putnam et al., 1994; Woolcock, 1998).

NGOs differ from other organizations in the way they operate. Gellert (1996) introduced six attributes that are usually distinctive of NGOs:

• Capability of reaching difficult areas
• Promoting the involvement and commitment of the local community
• Low cost
• Adaptability and an innovative nature
• Independence
• Sustainability.

Furthermore, NGOs often play the role of intermediary between governments and the populations, fostering a voluntary involvement in the projects and programs.

In particular, corporations, governments, and NGOs are acknowledged in the literature to have complementary roles. In general, firms provide goods and services where potential exists to earn profits and the benefits associated with the goods and services are both sufficiently excludable and rivalrous (Brinkerhoff, Smith, & Teegen, 2003). “Excludability” allows producers to limit the benefits to selected customers, and thus they can negate free riders to enjoy goods and services without paying for their use. “Rivalry” for the use implies that one customer’s use diminishes the potential for another to similarly use the good. Rivalry attributes inherent value to the goods and services, allowing producers to charge for providing these products to different customers (Brinkerhoff et al., 2003). However, not all goods and services that are socially necessary or desirable meet these conditions (Florini, 2003). These goods are referred to as “public goods,” and states traditionally are responsible for providing them in situations where low excludability and low rivalry cause market failure (Brinkerhoff et al., 2003).

In some instances, however, neither the market nor the state can fulfill completely all needs present in society (Teegen, Doh, & Vachani, 2004). In cases where important services, representation, and/or social cohesion are lacking, NGOs play critical roles in governance and value creation for social ends (Berger & Neuhaus, 1977). Teegen et al. (2004) classify NGOs by the benefits they create: membership or club NGOs, like unions, promote the material, social or political interests of their own members (Putnam, 2002), whereas social-purpose NGOs promote broader social interests. They further distinguish the latter in two non-mutually exclusive categories: advocacy NGOs work on behalf of those who lack the voice or access needed to promote their own interests (e.g., the poor or ethnic and religious minorities) and operational NGOs provide critical goods and services (e.g., health care assistance), filling voids generated by markets failures (Florini, 2003) and providing for unmet needs (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2002).

Despite some criticism regarding their role and impact in particular in terms of accountability and transparency (Hayden, 2002), there has been a proliferation of NGOs in recent years (Spar & La Mure, 2003), and an acknowledgement of their potential role to promote interests of global concern (Kamat, 2003) not subject to the political pressures that individual states face (Fowler, 2001).

2.2 Peculiarities of ID Projects

As mentioned before, ID projects are characterized by several peculiarities that make them different from other projects.

Several works cite some of these peculiarities, but an extensive literature review and a validation on the field is missing. Because of that, we performed a structured literature review to point out the peculiarities of NGOs and ID projects. We also validated and enriched our results by means of interviews with project managers of ID projects. We conducted structured interviews with heads of project management departments of two Italian NGOs and a number of more informal interviews with field project managers in Italy and abroad.

Before listing the peculiarities, during our analysis a distinction emerged between hard projects (e.g., construction) and soft projects (e.g., to enhance social conditions). This distinction is not new to the literature. Crawford and Pollack (2004) identified a set of parameters useful to identify the difference between the two (Table 2.1). This distinction allows different interpretations of the meaning of the peculiarities.

Generally speaking, ID projects are never purely “hard” projects, as there are always some goal ambiguity and a relevant role of the stakeholders. Still, in the domain of ID projects, some of them (e.g., construction) have tangible outputs and goals more clearly defined, while others (e.g., to improve social conditions) are much more on the soft side.

Table 2.1: Distinction between hard and soft projects (Crawford & Pollack, 2004).

Parameter	Hard Projects	Soft Projects
Goals clearly defined	Goal clarity	Goals/objectives highly ambiguous
Physical artifact	Goal tangibility	Abstract concept
Only quantitative	Success measures	Only qualitative
Not subject to external influences	Project permeability	Highly subject to external influences
Refinement of single solution	Number of solution options	Exploration of many alternative solutions
Expert practitioner, no stakeholder participation	Participation and practitioner role	Facilitative practitioner, high stakeholder involvement
Values technical performance and efficiency, manages by monitoring and control	Stakeholder expectations	Values relationships, culture and meaning, manages by negotiation and discussion

In Table 2.2, we report the six groups of peculiarities identified through the literature review and the interviews. We deem our list to be complete thanks to the feedback from the interviews that confirmed and integrated the items identified with the literature review.

As it can be seen from the table, these peculiarities can be present also for other typologies of projects. For instance, the lack of a defined and/or powerful customer and the high number of stakeholders is a problem shared with public projects (Khang & Moe, 2008), and the difficult and risky environment is similar to off-shore or mega-projects (Zhai et al., 2009). However, ID projects usually show all these characteristics at the same time, making them very unique as further detailed in the following.

2.2.1 Lack of a defined and/or powerful customer

By definition, in ID projects the target “customer,” or beneficiary, is a community in a developing country. However, the boundaries of this community are not always clearly defined, especially in heavily populated areas. Moreover, the community benefits from the project output, but usually its members do not pay for the project (Ahsan & Gunawan, 2010) and they do not have the technical competences and the ability to self-determine the goals of the project. This puts the beneficiaries in a weak position and, in a traditional stakeholder map, they might have the role of an influencer rather than “the customer.” The lack of a strong customer who is directly interested in the project output and who can enforce payment of penalties if the objectives are not met, makes ID projects similar to public projects (Khang & Moe, 2008). In these projects, customers have less power of supervision and direction, and therefore the project is more subject to pressures coming from other stakeholders.

2.2.2 High number of stakeholders

Another relevant peculiarity is related to the high number of stakeholders. In ID projects we usually have many of the stakeholders reported in Table 2.3.

A further element of complexity is given by the relationships among the different stakeholders that can be strong or weak, direct or mediated, frequent or scarce, etc. Figure 2.2 reports an example of stakeholders and their mutual relationships in an ID project (stakeholder map). In this example, the solid arrows represent usual communication between involved parties and the dotted arrows represent likely communication between parties.

Table 2.3: Types of stakeholders involved in an ID project.

	Description	Role/Interests
Project manager	In our case, the project manager managing the project	Manages the project, reaches objectives, meets stakeholders’ interests
NGO	The NGO implementing the project	Manage the portfolio of projects
Donors	Single or multiple companies, institutions, organizations, or individuals that give the money to support the project	Provide relief and help to the beneficiaries; gain positive reputations in their community
Organizations implementing projects in the same area	In the same area, other organizations (e.g., NGOs, governmental agencies) can carry other projects with possible common bottlenecks or adding constraints	Prioritize their own projects
Multilateral agencies	International agencies that monitor the progress of the project	Supervise
Local government and institutions	The government and institutions in the area where the project is delivered	Supervise, prioritize projects, align project objectives with the governmental objectives, provide help to the population, gain a positive public opinion, get international visibility, attract more aid
Beneficiaries	The recipients of the project	Align the project objectives with their needs, attract more aid
Local population	The rest of the population, even if does not directly benefits from the project, can affect the project	Compete to receive aid, create obstacles or facilitate the project, create positive or negative public opinion
Local implementing partners	Local companies (e.g., suppliers, contract workers) that participate to the project	Earn money, participate in more projects

The presence of a large array of stakeholders requires their involvement in the project; in fact, the lack of involvement and communication might lead to a wrong definition of the project objectives and therefore to a failure in achieving them. This consideration highlights the importance of stakeholder management in development projects. Local communities are one of the most critical and difficult stakeholders to be managed. Transferring knowledge to the target population is a priority during every phase of the project. Moreover, local communities’ involvement helps in identifying the characteristics of the environment and of the context where the project will be implemented in terms of tacit knowledge (e.g., political or cultural factors), which is important for project success (Saad et al., 2002; Steinfort, 2010)—see also peculiarity number 5 in Table 2.2.

The difference between hard and soft projects is mainly related to the fact that usually hard projects raise the interest of more stakeholders. First of all, these projects involve more money and, in turn, more people are involved with, for instance, supervision. Moreover, the positive or negative impact to the local population can be higher (e.g., in the case of infrastructures as roads or railways). Furthermore, the presence of local suppliers and contractors is, usually, more relevant.

2.2.3 Difficult, complex, and risky environment

The difficulty of the environment is a third crucial peculiarity. Developing countries are often characterized by scarcity of resources, lack of infrastructure, and complex supply networks. These factors usually cause problems to the project. It is possible to identify different categories of factors. First there are natural factors (territory, climate, risk of disaster). These factors can make especially hard projects more difficult and risky.

Next there are political and institutional factors. Local governments are often short of resources and might have trouble supplying all the information and resources promised at the time of planning and approving the project. Corruption is an endemic problem, and therefore monitoring and ensuring transparency can be difficult. Last, the administrative bureaucracies are often very intricate and frequently cause delays in the projects.

Third, there are social factors such as workforce availability, social instability, and the presence of different communities with conflicting interests. This can lead to problems in finding proper resources when the project needs them, leading to disruptions and delays. Finally, there are technological factors. Finding local suppliers can be difficult and the technology has to be adapted to the local resources.

Given this multitude of factors, it would be very helpful for project managers to have a shared risk database to gather information—in form of checklist, cases, examples, or statistics—about the risks they might incur in their projects. However, to the best of our knowledge, such database for project managers working in ID projects is still missing and represents a possible area of future research.

2.2.4 Resource scarcity

The next peculiarity is resource scarcity. NGOs often have limited and non-extendable budgets and often rely on volunteer work for their projects. Moreover, in the areas where projects are delivered, there can be lack of skilled resources, technology and infrastructures. Finally, there is an ethical issue related to the fact that the highest share of the money received should be used to provide help to the beneficiaries and not being dispersed in administrative or other non-value-adding activities. Therefore, the planning phase is critical to find the most efficient and effective way to implement the project, through an optimal allocation of the tasks and responsibilities and avoiding issues that can cause dispersion of money. Also, in the execution phase, it is fundamental to monitor the project and take corrective actions to stay in the budget.

2.2.5 Cultural differences

Another peculiarity of ID projects is the involvement of different countries at the same time (e.g., donor countries and receiver countries). In these cases the differences in values and cultures can create considerable cross-cultural challenges. The most frequent differences are related to culture, religion, language, and managerial processes and knowledge.

A project manager must be aware of the difficulties that might arise from these differences. In particular he has to be aware of the fact that the imposition of project management methodologies in places where these tools might be unknown or not shared can be problematic. As pointed out by interviews and the literature (Chan & Raymond, 2003), cultural differences are one relevant source of conflicts among parties and increase issues in the development of the project. Even if there are some studies about the cultural traits of countries that can affect managerial processes (e.g. Flynn & Saladin, 2006; Hofstede & Hofstede, 1991), still for a project manager it is not easy to know in advance all the problems related to culture—usually personal experience is the main source of information. Also these risks and problems could be included in the previously discussed database.

The main issues emerged from our analysis concerning hard projects are related to familiarity with the project management tools, attitude toward delegation, respect toward plans and contracts, and the different calendars. Issues on soft projects are usually related to peculiar social dynamics, culture, values, and religion.

When cultural differences are relevant, the initial phases of the project (initiation and planning) could require a lot of time to allow the parties understand each other. From our evidence, it is important to allow this initial extra time and avoid starting the project too early, otherwise it is more likely that issues will emerge during execution, and these could stop the project for a longer time.

2.2.6 Intangible outputs

Finally, the relevant presence of intangible outputs can create further difficulties. The objectives of development projects concern poverty alleviation, living standards improvement, and basic human rights protection. These humanitarian and social objectives are usually much less tangible, visible, and measurable, especially in the short term (Youker, 2004). Soft projects are especially characterized by this type of intangible objectives, and because of that they are exposed to a higher risk of scope creep (i.e., undesired or untracked changes to the original project scope that usually imply higher costs and time) under the pressure of stakeholders’ interests without the possibility of keeping track of it. However, also hard projects have this kind of problem when looking at the longer-term outcomes of a project. Tracking the construction of a school in terms of time, cost, and quality performance is relatively easy, but improving the level of instruction and social development of a community is much more difficult to be measured and requires specific measurements, even years after project completion.

References

Ahsan, K., & Gunawan, I. (2010). Analysis of cost and schedule performance of international development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 68–78.

Berger, P.L., & Neuhaus, R.N. (1977.) To empower people. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

Brinkerhoff, J.M., & Brinkerhoff, D.W. (2002). Governmental nonprofit relations in comparative perspective: evolution, themes and new directions. Public Administration and Development, 22, 3–18.

Brinkerhoff, J.M., Smith, S.C., & Teegen, H. (2003). On the role and efficacy of NGOs in achieving the millennium development goals:A framework for analysis and assessment. INGOT Working Paper No. 1. George Washington University.

Brown, L.D., & Kalegaonkar, A. (2002.) Support organizations and the evolution of the NGO Sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 231.

Chan, E.H.W., & Raymond, Y.C. (2003). Cultural considerations in international construction contracts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129, 375.

Charlton, R, (1995). NGOs, politics, projects and probity: a policy implementation perspective. Third World Quarterly, 16, 237–256.

Crawford, L., & Pollack, J. (2004). Hard and soft projects: A framework for analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 645–653.

Crawford, P., & Bryce, P. (2003). Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 363–373.

Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2004). The success dimensions of international development projects: The perceptions of African project coordinators. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 19–31.

Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2005). The success of international development projects, trust and communication: an African perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 237–252.

Florini, A. (200)3. The coming democracy: New rules for running a new world. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Flynn, B.B., & Saladin, B. (200)6. Relevance of Baldrige constructs in an international context: A study of national culture. Journal of Operations Management, 24, 583–603.

Fowler, A. (2001). The virtuous spiral: A guide to sustainability for NGOs in international development. London: Earthscan Publications.

Gellert, G.A. (1996). Non governmental organizations in international health: Past successes, future challenges Journal of Health Planning and Management, 11, 19–31.

Gordenker, L., & Weiss, T.G. (1995). Nongovernmental organisations, the United Nations and Global governance. Third World Quarterly, 16.

Gruner, A. (2005). Development of an Integrated process model for urban upgrading. Case study: Area Metropolitana de Caracas. Master Thesis, Fachhochschule Stuttgart, Stuttgart.

Hayden, R. (2002). Dictatorships of virtue. Harvard International Review, 24, 56–61.

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G.J. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New York: HarperCollins.

Hyden, G. (1998). Building civil society at the turn of the millennium, in: Burdridge, J. (Ed.), Beyond prince and merchant: Citizen participation and the rise of civil society. New York: PACT publications, pp. 17–47.

Kamat, S. (2003). NGOs and the new democracy: The false saviours of international development. Harvard International Review, 25, 65–69.

Khang, D.B., & Moe, T.L. (2008). Success criteria and factors for international development projects: A life cycle based framework. Project Management Journal, 39, 72–84.

Koch, D.J., Dreher, A., Nunnenkamp, P., & Thiele, R. (2009). Keeping a low profile: What determines the allocation of aid by nongovernmental organizations? World Development, 37, 902–918.

Kovach, H., Neligan, C., & Burall, S., 2003. Power without accountability? One World Trust. Accessed online at: http://ocw.unizar.es/ocw/ciencias-sociales-y-juridicas/direccion-de-entidades-no-lucrativas/ejercicios/ep-f-001-kovach.pdf

Lindberg, P., Voss, C., & Blackmon, K.L., (1998). International manufacturing strategies: context, content, and change. Kluwer Academic Pub, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Maxwell, S., (2005). Should we provide a guarantee that no child will be brain-damaged by malnutrition in Africa if money can prevent it?, in: Overseas Development Institute (Ed.), Online at: http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/680.pdf

Moe, T.L., & Pathranarakul, P. (2006). An integrated approach to natural disaster management: Public project management and its critical success factors. Disaster Prevention and Management, 15, 396–413.

Muriithi, N., & Crawford, L. (2003). Approaches to project management in Africa: Implications for international development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 309–319.

Putnam, R.D. (2002). Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporary society. New York: Oxford University Press.

Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1994). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Quartey Jnr, E.L. (1996). Development projects through build-operate schemes: their role and place in developing countries. International Journal of Project Management, 14, 47–52.

Raimondi, A., & Antonelli, G. (2001). Manuale di cooperazione allo sviluppo: Linee evolutive, spunti problematici, prospettive. SEI, Torino (Italy)

Roosevelt, F., (1944). Opening Message to the Bretton Woods Conference, Quoted in the New York Times, 2 July, 1944, p. 14.

Saad, M., Cicmil, S., & Greenwood, M. (2002). Technology transfer projects in developing countries—Furthering the project management perspectives. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 617–625.

Spar, D.L., & La Mure, L.T. (200)3. The power of activism: Assessing the impact of NGOs on global business. California Management Review, 45, 78–101.

Steinfort, P. (2010). Understanding the antecedents of project management best practice-lessons to be learned from aid relief projects. PhD, School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne.

Teegen, H., Doh, J.P., & Vachani, S. (2004). The importance of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in global governance and value creation: An international business research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 463–483.

UNAIDS (2008). Report on the global AIDS epidemic.

UNDP (2011). Human development report.

United Nations (2012). The millennium development goals report. New York.

Vakil, A.C. (1997). Confronting the classification problem: toward a taxonomy of NGOs. World Development, 25, 2057–2070.

Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27, 151–208.

Youker, R. (1999). Executive point of view: managing international development projects-Lessons learned. Project Management Journal, 30, 6–7.

Youker, R. (2004). The nature of international development projects. World Bank.

Zhai, L., Xin, Y., Cheng, C., (2009). Understanding the value of project management from a stakeholder’s perspective: Case study of megaproject management. Project Management Journal, 40, 99–109.