From Policy to People: Why Legitimacy Is the Missing Link in Sustainable Development

The World Bank's Policy Research Working Paper 11234, titled "Process Legitimacy and Development: Analytical Framings, Implications, and Applications," delves into one of the most overlooked yet critical aspects of global development, how legitimacy determines whether progress endures. Written by Patrick Barron, Marine Gassier, Meltem Ikindji, and Michael Woolcock from the World Bank's Social Sustainability and Inclusion Global Department, the study explores why even the best-intentioned interventions fail when people perceive them as imposed, unfair, or culturally disconnected. Produced by the Research Support Team and funded through the Human Rights Inclusion and Empowerment Trust Fund, the report emphasizes that legitimacy is not a mere accessory to development, it is its foundation.

When Good Projects Fail: Lessons from Lesotho and Kenya

The paper opens with two revealing case studies that expose the social fault lines that can undermine even well-funded development projects. In Lesotho's Thaba-Tseka project of the late 1970s, donors aimed to modernize agriculture and boost commercial farming. Roads were built, tools distributed, and cooperatives formed, but the initiative collapsed. The failure stemmed from a profound misunderstanding of local realities. For the Basotho, cattle ownership symbolized prestige, family honor, and social ties, not just economic value. Asking farmers to sell livestock ignored their cultural identity. Attempts to create "participatory" institutions only deepened divisions, as committees became dominated by the ruling party, turning development into a tool of political control.

A similar story unfolded in Kenya, where the NGO Give Directly distributed unconditional cash transfers to poor households. In Homa Bay County, nearly half the eligible families rejected the money, fearing it carried hidden costs. In communities where "free money" is seen as morally suspect, rumors spread that recipients would face tragedy or spiritual harm. The program clashed with deep-rooted beliefs about reciprocity and fairness, showing that even generosity can fail without social legitimacy.

The Power of Perception: What Makes a Process Legitimate

From these failures, the authors extract the central concept of process legitimacy, the idea that development success depends not only on outcomes but on whether people view the process itself as fair and credible. They define it as the degree to which societies accept who holds authority, how goals are chosen, and how implementation unfolds. Five key drivers shape this perception: the credibility of decision-makers, adherence to accepted rules, alignment with societal values, transparency and participation, and perceived benefits for affected people. When these conditions are absent, communities resist, even when projects are technically sound.

The report argues that legitimacy is rarely uniform; it varies between groups, classes, and institutions. Development work, therefore, unfolds amid overlapping legitimacy contests, between social groups, between rival elites, between national and local authorities, and between domestic and global actors. Recognizing and navigating these contests is central to avoiding failure and building trust.

Development in Conflict: When Legitimacy Divides

The paper illustrates its theory with examples from around the world. In Cameroon, French and British colonial legacies left two governance traditions that remain incompatible, centralized Francophone administration versus Anglophone federalism. This division erupted into violent conflict, showing how differing visions of legitimate rule can destabilize a state. In Thailand's Deep South, government policies privileging Buddhist norms alienated Malay-Muslim communities, sustaining decades of insurgency.

Elite competition in Ukraine provides another lens. The 2004 Orange Revolution was less about ideology than about competing claims to legitimate leadership. One faction championed democratic reforms and Western alignment, while another defended existing power structures and ties with Russia. Both invoked legitimacy but grounded it in different values. Likewise, in Indonesia, Suharto's attempt to replace adat (customary law) with centralized authority sparked long-term struggles between state and traditional elites, a pattern echoed in Myanmar, where the 2021 military coup obliterated hard-won democratic legitimacy.

At the global level, legitimacy contests extend to climate change and human rights. The paper cites the Paris Agreement as an example: wealthy nations' failure to meet emissions and funding commitments has eroded trust among developing countries, while local populations, both rich and poor, question whether climate policies truly serve their interests.

Negotiating Change: How Development Can Build Legitimacy

The authors propose that development actors must go beyond technical fixes to actively build legitimacy. This means supporting norm change from within societies, helping local leaders and reformers adapt global values to local contexts instead of imposing them. For example, programs advancing gender equality or environmental reforms are more likely to succeed when framed in locally meaningful language and supported by respected community figures.

Equally important is the creation of "legitimate spaces" for negotiation, forums where governments, communities, and external partners can openly discuss priorities, trade-offs, and rules. These spaces should be transparent, participatory, and trusted by all sides. Development institutions such as the World Bank, by leveraging their research expertise and neutrality, can facilitate these dialogues, helping communities move from conflict toward consensus.

From Imposition to Inclusion: A New Model for Development

The report concludes that legitimacy is not an accessory but the engine of sustainable progress. Projects may deliver roads, cash, or services, but without trust, fairness, and shared ownership, they rarely endure. True development lies not in imposing change but in co-creating it, through dialogue, transparency, and respect for local values. As the authors note, development that is not perceived as legitimate risks breeding resistance, inequality, and even violence. The path forward, therefore, lies in recognizing that how change happens matters just as much as what change delivers. In the long run, legitimacy is the currency that determines whether societies move toward cooperation or collapse.