The Territorial Approach to Local Development (TALD) has become an increasingly influential framework within the fields of decentralization, localization, and multilevel governance. By emphasizing place-based development, local ownership, and coordination across levels of government, TALD offers a compelling alternative to traditional top-down development models. Yet an important question often remains unaddressed: under what conditions does territorial development actually promote human development, inclusion, and local empowerment?
This question lies at the heart of a recent master’s thesis by Nicaraguan development practitioner Rodolfo Glenton, which evaluates TALD through the lens of Development Ethics. Glenton finds that while the approach can be highly effective in contexts with strong institutions and accountable governance, it may prove vulnerable in environments characterized by power asymmetries, clientelism, weak accountability, and limited citizen agency. Rather than rejecting TALD, the thesis suggests that territorial development requires a more explicit ethical foundation if it is to consistently advance human dignity, freedom, and justice.
What is the Territorial Approach to Local Development (TALD)?
As discussed in an earlier DNet blog on territorial development and decentralization in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Territorial Approach to Local Development (TALD) is a policy framework that promotes bottom-up, integrated development by empowering local authorities to collaborate with civil society, the private sector, and citizens. It shifts the focus from top-down national decentralization directives towards endogenous localized processes and strategies to capitalize on a region or lcoality’s unique strengths and needs.
TALD is best understood not as a fixed model, but as a framework for coordination. It seeks to align local priorities with national policies and global development agendas by bringing together public, private, and civic actors across levels of government. In doing so, it emphasizes multilevel governance, local capacity, and citizen engagement as key drivers of development.
The appeal of this approach is clear. In a region marked by persistent territorial disparities and uneven state capacity, strengthening development “from the ground up” offers a compelling alternative to centralized, sector-driven models. Yet, as experience across Latin America suggests, the effectiveness of TALD is often shaped by deeper structural and political realities that are not easily addressed through institutional design alone.
When technical solutions meet political realities
Much of the practice around TALD focuses on improving coordination, planning, and implementation. The framework offers practical guidance on how actors can work together, how local development strategies can be formulated, and how multilevel systems can be made more coherent.
But this technical strength can also obscure a more fundamental question: what ensures that these processes actually lead to inclusive and equitable outcomes? Across Latin America and the Caribbean, local development does not take place on a level playing field. Territorial governance is often shaped by unequal access to resources, weak accountability mechanisms, and entrenched systems of influence. In such contexts, the same participatory and coordination mechanisms that are meant to empower local actors can, in practice, be redirected to serve narrower interests.
Without a clearer normative anchor, territorial development risks becoming a procedural exercise—well-designed on paper, but less transformative in reality.
The overlooked role of power in local governance
A central challenge lies in how power operates within territories. TALD places strong emphasis on participation and multilevel coordination, but it often assumes that actors engage on relatively equal terms. In reality, local governance arenas are frequently characterized by significant asymmetries.
Informal networks, political patronage, and economic concentration can shape decision-making in ways that are not immediately visible in formal institutional arrangements. Under these conditions, participatory processes may become selective rather than inclusive, and coordination mechanisms may reinforce existing hierarchies rather than rebalance them.
This does not negate the value of territorial approaches. It does, however, suggest that proximity alone is not sufficient. Bringing governance closer to the local level can just as easily reproduce existing inequalities if underlying power structures remain unaddressed.
Reconnecting territorial development with human development
If territorial approaches are to deliver on their promise, they need to be grounded more explicitly in a set of normative principles that go beyond coordination and efficiency. At its core, local development should be about expanding people’s real opportunities—their ability to participate meaningfully in decisions, to access services and livelihoods, and to shape their own futures.
This implies a stronger focus on agency, not simply as formal participation, but as effective influence. It requires attention to territorial justice, ensuring that development efforts do not inadvertently widen spatial disparities. It also calls for greater emphasis on transparency and accountability, particularly in environments where institutional checks are weak.
Perhaps most importantly, it requires a more explicit recognition of power. Territorial development is not a neutral process; it is embedded in political and social structures that shape whose voices are heard and whose interests prevail. Addressing these dynamics is essential if multilevel governance is to become genuinely inclusive.
Implications for the decentralization agenda
For those working on decentralization and multilevel governance, this perspective reinforces the need to look beyond institutional design. Strengthening local systems remains critical, but it must be accompanied by a deeper understanding of the environments in which these systems operate.
In more favorable contexts, territorial approaches can function largely as intended, enabling coordination and fostering local initiative. In more constrained settings, however, additional attention is needed to ensure that local processes are not captured or distorted. This may require stronger safeguards, more deliberate inclusion strategies, and a clearer articulation of the values that underpin development efforts.
It also suggests a shift in how success is assessed. Rather than focusing primarily on outputs or implementation, greater emphasis should be placed on whether territorial development processes are expanding capabilities, strengthening trust, and promoting fairness across places.
Read the thesis (in Spanish): ¿Es el Enfoque Territorial al Desarrollo Local consistente con la Ética del Desarrollo? successfully defended by Rodolfo Antonio Glenton Valle (2026) as part of FLACSO Argentina’s Human Development Program.
