When Scale Misses the Soil: Why Local Ownership and Behavioral Fit Matter in Big Projects

Note:

This post is adapted from my contribution to a discussion on EvalforEarth, “Do Big Projects Deliver Effective Solutions in a Complex World?” initiated by Ram Chandra Khanal, Advisor at the Community of Evaluators, Nepal. I thank Ram and the platform for creating space to reflect on the real-world complexities of large-scale interventions. Discussion link: EvalforEarth Discussion

Large-scale development projects often promise efficiency, visibility, and scale. But in my view, their effectiveness depends heavily on the nature of the problem they're trying to solve—and how grounded they are in local realities.

When it comes to relief-oriented interventions with clear short-term goals—such as disaster response or emergency food aid—a centralised, top-down structure can indeed be beneficial. It allows for streamlined coordination, faster resource mobilisation, and minimal fragmentation. In such scenarios, scale aligns with urgency, and standardisation often works in favor of efficiency.

But for development-oriented goals, things change. Community buy-in, ownership, and long-term behaviour change become central to success. And here, large-scale, top-down projects often struggle. Why? Two recurring reasons stand out.

First, design often fails to capture the subtlety and diversity of local needs. Uniform solutions, even when well-funded and technically sound, may not resonate with communities facing different socio-economic, ecological, or cultural realities.

Second, many beneficiaries lack a sense of agency or intrinsic motivation to engage. Programs can feel imposed, with limited room for negotiation or adaptation. As a result, community members might participate passively—or not at all—undermining sustainability.

Take micro-finance as an example. The Grameen Bank model in Bangladesh is often cited as a success story. But attempts to replicate it at scale in China led to the collapse of hundreds of institutions and a wave of bad debt. Why? One key reason lies in misalignment between the concept and the local mindset. In many areas, farmers interpreted micro loans as aid, not credit to be repaid. Cultural expectations around money, trust, and reciprocity were never fully integrated into program design.

The lesson here is clear: projects that rely on human agency and sustained participation must be behaviourally informed, culturally grounded, and ideally co-created with local actors. Without this, even the best-designed systems risk unraveling.

An Application of Mixed-Method Evaluation Design: Consultations with Village Cadres to Co-design Beneficiary Surveys. (Sichuan, China, 2022)

This extends to monitoring and evaluation (M&E) as well. In many large-scale projects, M&E frameworks are heavy on indicators but light on insight. They often miss both the obstacles and the organic, unexpected progress that happens on the ground. Numbers alone can’t capture shifts in trust, empowerment, or learning. That’s where qualitative and mixed-method approaches, rooted in real field engagement, become indispensable. These help unpack the psychological and behavioural dynamics that underlie project uptake and impact.

In sum, not all big projects fail—but those that succeed tend to do three things well:

• Respect local complexity;

• Engage beneficiaries as co-creators, not passive recipients;

• Invest in evaluative approaches that listen, learn, and adapt.

We should be cautious about equating scale with success. Development doesn’t just need reach—it needs roots.