Problem overview:

     Integrating stakeholders: When people pay for something they are more likely to appreciate it and make sure it works as intended. In India, a local government matching grants programme worked well, inspiring 26,500 villages to participate (and pay for) local infrastructure improvements.

Background in summary:

     Community incentives, matching grant schemes versus full grants.

     Origination and idea of the Matching Grants Programme: Matching Grants Programme (MGP) was initiated in the early 1980's by the Local Government and Rural Development Department, Punjab, to facilitate infrastructure development in rural areas with the support and participation of Local population.

     Financing and expenditure of the programme: The Directorate General provides 50% matching grant to the community which can bring forward sufficient support vis-a-vis 50% contribution in form of cash, labour and material. 79% households provided their share in one form or the other. Within a decade, 30 million US Dollars were spent by the Directorate General on 22,000 schemes in around 26,500 villages.

     Capacity building and community development: MGP had a significant impact in stimulating community development in rural areas; this extends from Union Councils (who gained experience in managing development schemes) to villagers who drew together firstly to contribute and then maintain these facilities.

     Post-analysis of MGP:

• 95% of the members expressed satisfaction with MGP and realized that the schemes were actually needed
  
  
• Community members developed a sense of participation and accomplishment in improving their living environment.
  
  
• General socio-economic conditions in MGP villages were found to be better than control villages.
  
  
• MGP projects were less costly and had lower pilferage than formally tendered projects.

Peer Review Committee Good practice rating: (1 for the best, 5 for the lowest score)
Sustainability		Efficiency
2	Improvement in either the environment of economic condition with no harm to the other.	1	Cost efficient.
2	Sustainable over time (not one-off)	Process
Adaptability		1	Participation of the community
2	Location adaptability (can the project be done in other places?)	2	Participation of resource owners/users
3	Socio-cultural adaptability.	2	Partnerships between various actors (Governments, NGO, Academia, Private)
2	Level of development adaptability.	3	Degree of coordination and cooperation between government departments.
2	Style of government adaptability.	3	Ability to attract political interest/support
2	Degree of decentralization adaptability.	3	Procedures for feedback and review.
Comments on this example:       Matching Grant is a good scheme to ensure proper incentive and participation. It is also highly cost effective. When the scheme was replaced by full grants, the results were far less satisfactory and much more costly. The old adage, "You only appreciate what you pay for," is especially true in development programmes. Sustainability of the project:   Adaptability of the project to other situations:       A multitude of studies has demonstrated that matching funds work better than total funding packages. Process of decision making and implementation:      Integrating stakeholders: Development programmes to improve the living standards of local communities should be done similarly to the Matching Grants Programme. In developing countries, the government does not have enough budget and time to focus on developing, improving and maintaining rural infrastructure. Hence, these rural communities are left with very poor living standards compared to people in the cities. However, the Matching Grants Programme has demonstrated that communities themselves could improve their own living standards without much assistance from the government as long as they work together in unity and each person contributes to the group as much as they can with whatever they can provide. Cost efficiency: