The rise of participatory development
 Participatory development is
not a recent phenomenon. Democratic
forms of decision-making have existed
in most cultures including religious
communities and political dissident
movements. Participatory principles
were central to the international
cooperative movement, many nationalist
and some socialist movements. In
the 1950s and 1960s postcolonial
and postrevolutionary governments
employed a wide range of measures
at local and community level in attempts
to mobilise their populations for
national development.
 In the 1970s and 1980s there was
widespread institutionalisation of
the rhetoric of participatory development
in response to evidence of the failure
of large numbers of expensive large-scale,
top-down projects in both capitalist
and socialist countries. In the 1980s
this emphasis on participatory development
was also part of the move to 'roll
back the state' and to put greater
emphasis on non-governmental organisations
as providers of services previously
supplied by the state.
By the end of the 1980s participatory
development had become an established
umbrella term for a new style of
development. There is a plethora
of manuals on techniques for participatory
development produced by a wide range
of organisations. Most international
donor agencies have official statements
about the need for beneficiary participation,
project guidelines for participatory
projects.
|
Participation
as Transformation?
 Participatory development has been
promoted on the basis of a number of
arguments:
• Rights argument: Participation,
and particularly and explicitly participation
of the poorest and most vulnerable
participants is
a human right and an inherent and indivisible
component of pro-poor development strategies
and empowerment.
• Effectiveness
argument: Participation
of the main stakeholders increases
the accuracy of information and
relevance
to the realities of peoples' lives
and policy decision and implementation
processes.
• Cost-efficiency
argument: Involvement
of the main stakeholders increases
ownership
of the development process, better
use of resources and is likely
to enable mobilisation local resources
to augment or even substitute those
from outside
• Process argument: the
participatory process, through
building skills, capacities and networks
is a contribution in itself to pro-poor
development, civil society and empowerment.
Return to top
|
Participation as Tyranny?
Since the mid-1990s, parallel to
the rapid expansion of participatory
methods, have been a series of critiques
of both practice and the underlying
theoretical underpinnings of these
methods. Many of the theoretical
critiques of participatory development
have their roots in very much earlier
debates about the nature of democracy
and political systems for representation.
Participatory development
cannot
be seen as a substitute for strategic
policies to address poverty, inequality
and empowerment. Participatory processes, even
those initiated from the 'bottom-up' are not necessarily
either inclusive or egalitarian. People's Movements
frequently exclude or marginalise
the very poor, women
and other disadvantaged groups.
Outsiders may further
reinforce existing inequalities because of
their ignorance of local inequalities and/or their
dependence on these power structures to gain access
to 'communities'. Reference to 'cultural
sensitivity' and the need for 'community
participation' are often cited as
reasons for not addressing gender
issues without even consulting
women or men about gender concerns
they may have.
A key concern
in critiques of participatory methods
from the empowerment/rights perspective
has been the ways in which development
agencies (from multilateral agencies
to NGOs) and politicians have used
the rhetoric of participation and
participatory development to mask
processes in which participation
is extremely superficial and/or
unequal and/or manipulated to support
their own ends. Return to top |
participatory
development: key questions
'Participation' in the sense of 'taking
part' in collective forms of action
and decision-making at some level and
between some individuals is an inherent
part of all social life. Even
slaves 'participated'
in the building of ancient and recent
empires. Many people 'participated'
in the Nazi rebuilding of Germany and
in ethnic cleansing of minority groups.
There is nothing inherently
desirable about 'participation'
per se.
Participatory development
which aims to make a significant
contribution to poverty eradication
and empowerment must be constantly
reflecting on the following questions: • Why is participation
being advocated
• Who is participating
• When they are participating
• How they are participating
• Who benefits from the
participatory process
• Who benefits from the
outcomes.
The goal of participatory development
needs to be clearly this last issue
ie ensuring that the poorest and most
vulnerable people benefit most from
the outcomes of the participatory process.
It is this concern which should determine
decisions about who participates, how
and when and not any inherent commitment
to 'as much participation by as many
and at any cost'. It is also crucial
that these people should benefit directly
and as far as possible from the time
and energy they give to the participatory
process and not treated as unpaid labourers
for agendas determined by outsiders. |