Why Participatory Development Is Not Transformative - Coursework Example

Why Participatory Development is not Transformative Name Course Name and Code Date Introduction Participatory Development or PD refers to the involvement of people or individuals who have been affected through the development process as planners in that particular process and eventually became very popular during the 1980’s and 1990’s as a response towards neoliberal and globalization development policies (Chambers, 1997). It was initially inspired by Robert Chambers’ work as means of overcoming the limitations of expert planning, research and also as a way of overcoming the challenges associated by to-down development. Participatory development has been marked by the phrase known as “…ordinary people know best…” However, Participatory Development has been heavily criticized due to claims that it is tokenistic and it has not been able to address clearly the issues of result based planning that was recently published and the top-down development (Chambers, 1997). Participation refers to the taking of an active part by individuals involved in development in the process of both the planning and implementation of development activities and the enjoyment of their associated benefits (Cornwall and Gaveta, 2001). Participation in each aspect of economy, politics and the society is very vital as being both the means and goal of development. There are various reasons as to why participatory development is sometimes not transformative. For instance, it has been ascertained that the difficulty in participatory development arises in the need of publicly securing basic human rights in order to complement the informal decision making systems, which do not necessarily help in the promotion of participation. This has been du to domination in such activities by the local community bosses. Importance of Participatory Development Participatory development has been regarded as being one of the most vital approaches towards the realization of self-reliance, social justice and sustainable development. Despite the fact that Participatory Development was initiated with an aim of countering the “Top-Down” approach towards development in which the whole process of formulation and implementation of policies was done under the direction of people and developing country governments in which individuals were placed in passive positions (Chambers, 1997). The top down approach eventually led to leaving of unsolved and deep-rooted problems of both disparities and poverty between rural and urban areas, which ultimately jeopardized the sustainability, and general success of the development projects (Cornwall and Gaveta, 2001). It is therefore through the consciousness of such inadequacies that that Participatory development was formed (Mohan, 2007). However, the use of participatory development has not arrested the situation because it is not transformative since despite of it being an attempt aimed at overcoming or compensating the limitations encountered in the “top-down development” approach through the adoption of a bottom-up approach, this approach has proved to be not transformative on the society and in governments. Challenges facing PD Despite aid providers heavily investing in Participatory Development with a view that they have promising opportunities through which poverty reduction and empowerment can be advanced in the community. A review done in the four hundred (400) studies of the decentralization programs by Mansuri and Rao indeed discovered that there was limited evidence to ascertain that such programs were capable of either reducing poverty or even increasing civic capacity and accountability. Mansuri and Rao therefore argued that most of the local participatory initiatives or programs were actually driven through naïve assumptions, which failed to consider 2 main issues, which made transformation to be difficult (Chambers, 1997). It was discovered that most of the development organizations did not explicitly differentiate between the organic participation which was marked by independent acting of the citizens and induced participation which was sometimes ascertained to be in opposition towards the government in which the donor or such governments were known for encouraging people to participate (Talen, 2000). Most of the aid providers have high expectations that the participatory projects ought to have equal empowerment impacts like the organic social movements (Cornwall, 2002). However, induced participation is normally dependent on an inherent paradox because it needs top-down efforts in order to encourage the people stand up against any possible power holders. As a result, such efforts are quite unlikely of becoming effective unless they are given support by some of the State elements. Due to these facts, participatory Development cannot become transformative. Reasons for Failure of PD Participatory Development cannot become transformative because of failures by the civil societies (Cornwall and Gaveta, 2001). This is because despite the fact that most of the aid programs are known to embrace participation as a means of addressing both government and market failures, they have also tended to ignore the possibility of failure by the civil societies, which arise through local community capacity deficits and collective action problems (Chambers, 1997). Despite of the project planners expectations which imply that relative modest community programs can result in uninterrupted, linear and transformative changes in empowerment and poverty reduction, the social hierarchies and power relations are quite unequal and sometimes, they are even more entrenched at the grass root or local levels as opposed to the national level (Cornwall, 2002). As a result, there is no transformation since ordinary citizens normally lack the capacity of monitoring and holding the service providers to become accountable and therefore the local elites capture most of the benefits that are associated with the program (Mayoux, 1995). Why PD is expensive for the poor population Participatory Development is also costly for poor individuals both in terms of the associated political risks and the resources and time that they are required to invest in the development programs which may eventually turn out not benefiting them (Avritzer, 2002). Apart from such findings, other studies conducted on Local participatory development programs have also resonated with other conclusions on support participation (Petr, 2013). For instance according to the evaluation of Bhavna Sharma and Alina Rocha regarding accountability and citizen voice, it was ascertained that the results obtained in the projects were very disappointing (Cornwall, 2002). This was because there were donor expectations, which were overly high, there was a flawed assumption that the voice of the citizen could automatically enhance state accountability and there was a lack of attention towards power relations (Jennings, 2000). It is through such factors that transformation of participatory Development has not been very transformative. Why PD has not been transformative Participatory Development has not been transformative because of the wrong assumption by the aid providers who often regard the participation of the citizen as being a tool for state compensation’s weakness and on putting pressure on the non-developmental government (Osmani, 2008). However, available evidence has indeed indicated that the development programs can only be sustainable if the citizen activists have got the government partners which are capable of advancing their efforts through local development projects which attempt to override domestic institutions while favouring donor created institutions which do not operate well (Cornwall and Gaveta, 2001). What should be done to make PD to be transformative? Participatory development cannot therefore be transformative unless a sandwich approach is advocated with an aim of pushing the local governments to enhance performance with a bottom up demand by citizens and with a top down central government pressure (Cornwall, 2002). Many of the community development projects are mainly aimed at gaining the input of the citizens and carry out cost sharing on particular development initiatives in which most of the objectives are decided earlier. Such a type of participation is capable of imposing additional burdens on the poor individuals without necessarily giving them more substantive power (Chambers, 1997). In order to contribute fully towards transformation and empowerment, then it is important for the participatory organizations to get real teeth and allow their citizens to have some meaningful impact on decisions regarding development. Failures to enact such policies have been largely to blame for failure of participatory development to become transformative (Watkins & Tacchi, 2008). Why illiteracy affects PD Participatory development has not been transformative because of illiteracy, which has taken a high told on the citizens (Flyvbjerg, 1998). This is because the lack of education among the members of the society makes it very difficult for the projects to be implemented effectively. Education has been ascertained to play a vital role towards enhancing civic capacity especially by enhancing illiteracy by direct efforts in civic education (Cornwall, 2002). Apart from that, participatory development has also not been transformative because some of the development programs are based on both social and political analyses, which do not examine the wider political economy and the local power relations (Fals-Borda & Muhammad, 1991). Most of the local participatory development programs have been facing the risks of being captured by the elites, government and the civil society nexus and thus generally failing to transform the society (Chambers, 1997). The failure of participatory development in transforming communities has also been attributed towards a lack of understanding among them on how they are regarded or perceived in the communities in which they operate and in how well they actually fit in the structure of local power (Leal, 2007). Failure of firstly building capacity has also been the reason as to why participatory Development has not been transformative in various communities because the programs are not usually devoted towards the resources which are aimed at enhancing civic capacity towards participation and also in holding the governments to become accountable (Tufte and Thomas, 2009). Development practitioners also lack the much needed space aimed at enhancing their own capacity in order to support participation through learning what is important to a country’s citizens and any possible barriers that they encounter (Fung & Wright, 2001). Failure by the relevant stakeholders in understanding that participation is not just a mere technical input, which can be easily unleashed through linear progress, is also responsible for failure of participatory development to become transformative. Criticisms aimed at PD As compared to other traditional forms of development, Participatory Development is not transformative due to various forms of criticisms that have been levelled against it (Taylor, Pettit and Stackpool-Moore, 2006). For instance, PD has been criticized as being too slow and costly thus making transformation to become too complex and difficult to achieve (Chambers, 1997). Unlike traditional development, PD has been criticized for reaching out to a small population and having higher start up costs. Apart from that, augmentation and community dialogue may only comprise of a few people while the dropped food aid is capable of reaching many people. Transformation has also been difficult in participatory development (Cornwall, 2002). The project planners have been accused of treating various communities and societies as if they each person in them is the same. Critics have argued that while many organizations and business enterprises have acknowledged the importance of including the female people in the Participatory Development Projects, there has been limited success in the history of its success thus making transformation in the society to become unachievable. Transformation has been unable to be achieved in PD because the projects always sought to address the immediate needs of women without necessarily addressing some of the underlying challenges and gender subordination aspects like restrictions or hindrances on female mobility. Other aspects include unequal division in reproductive labour, lack of autonomy in women, and domestic violence. Critics have also argued that there is lack of transformation in the Participatory Management projects since they always fully fail in adequately addressing other inequalities like for instance caste and class (Cornwall, 2002). Participatory development has also not been transformative in societies because in attempting to give voices to the communities, the development agencies may only connect with the elite members of a specific group thus re-enforcing the local inequalities (Sen, 2002). Transformation in participatory development projects has also been hampered through tokenism in which a few local voices, which are handpicked, are allowed to speak or become a rubberstamp in order to prove the participatory credentials (Brigg, 2002). Critics have argued that such a view suggests that companies only include the local voices in order to enhance their image without actually seeking to engage also the entire population with which they are cooperating or working with. Transformation has not been well achieved despite of the fact that participation has actually secured its prominent position on the international aid agenda and currently, few individuals would actually contest that citizen participation is necessary and valuable. However, the overflowing objectives in participatory programs have also contributed towards unrealistic expectations regarding what such modest interventions are capable of achieving (Taylor and Angeles, 2006). Participatory development has not been transformative because of the donor funded community decentralization and development experiences, which have vividly highlighted the dangers of assuming that participatory development in itself, will be capable of cutting poverty and empowering individuals (Cornwall, 2002). This is because it reveals the serious obstacles towards the effective collective action that is induced through outside actors (Mohan, 2008). Participatory development is not is not transformative because the development agencies have encountered difficulties in the implementation of effective participatory programs for reasons which range from impacts towards inflexible bureaucratic structures and inadequate “socio-political knowledge”. Research conducted has also indicated that despite the fact that the projects in participatory development both encouraged and claimed to adopt “participatory approaches”, most individuals were not actually encouraged in the processes through which such participation could lead to the achievement of empowerment, transformation and creation of real changes in their own lives (Cornwall, 2002). Participatory development is not transformative because primarily, the development of participatory programs needs an in-depth comprehension of the prevailing economic, physical, political and social environments. Transformation has therefore not been transformative due to the above factors. Failure by development providers in adopting approaches, which accept negotiations with the local communities and challenge oppressive circumstances or situations has also attributed to the reasons as to why there is no transformation in participatory management (Taylor and Fransman, 2004). Participatory development has been unable to achieve its set objectives and thus also because unable to become transformative because the local communities and societies have not been provided with enough skills, information and resources. Lack of a Moral-Obligatory Approach Failure by participatory development to transform communities is due to lack of application of the “moral-obligatory approach” (Schuurman, 2000). There has been no real change or transformations in the lives of individuals whom the development interventions have been addressed because there has been no adherence towards the plans and strategies that have been collectively designed. Participatory development has not been transformative because there has been no further research that has been conducted with an aim of exploring the values, impacts and roles of the facilitators and development providers as well as the potential and nature of the local communities’ participative practices, organizations and values (Chambers, 1997). Despite the fact, that contemporary government and other development organizations have claimed that they promote a general philosophy of advocating (Friedman, 2005). It advocates individuals’ capacity and right of defining and controlling their own development, the real impact of participatory approaches on the beneficiaries, social structures of power and even their sustainability has remained largely unknown and as a result, transformation has been quite difficult to achieve (Cornwall, 2002). Conclusion Many theorists in participatory development have asserted that the belief and support in participation is utmost universal but however, the development of the techniques and tools to put into practice coupled the knowledge regarding the obstacles and how they can be overcome has actually lacked behind. Participatory development has also lagged behind because and has not become transformative because there has been high concern regarding the relevancy of the participatory approaches and also their ability in revealing the reality of the poor people and their involvement in the process of decision making. Failure by participatory Development to become transformative, has according to several theorists been attributed towards the participation in policy making, development planning and sharing of decisions which have merely remained a matter of rhetoric instead of becoming real practice. Failure by the relevant stakeholders to comprehend the motives of individuals’ participation and lack of in-depth investigations regarding indigenous participatory organizations, values and practices has also resulted in lack References Avritzer, L. 2002. Democracy and the Public Space in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press Brigg, M. 2002. Post-development, Foucault and the colonization metaphor. Third World Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 421-436. Chambers, R. 1997. Whose Reality Counts: Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications Chambers, R. 1997. Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London: ITDG Publishing. Cornwall, A. 2002. Beneficiary, Consumer, Citizen: Perspectives on Participation for Poverty Reduction. New York: Sida Studies Cornwall, A. and Gaveta, J. 2001. From users and choosers to makers and shapers: repositioning participation in social policy. IDS Working Paper no. 127. Available at http://www.ids.ac.uk/idspublication/from-users-and-choosers-to-makers-and-shapers-repositioning-participation-in-social-policy Fals-Borda, O., & Muhammad, R. 1991. Action & knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research. New York: Apex Press. Flyvbjerg, B. 1998. Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Friedman, S. 2005. On whose terms? Participatory Governance and Citizen Action in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Paper for International Institute of Labour Studies Workshop, 9 – 10 December 2005. Fung, A. & Wright, E. 2001. Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Politics and Society, vol. 29, pp. 5- 41 Jennings, R. 2000. Participatory Development as New Paradigm: The Transition of Development Professionalism. Community Based Reintegration and Rehabilitation in Post-Conflict Settings Conference. Leal, P. A. 2007. Participation: the ascendancy of a buzzword in the neoliberal era. Development in Practice, vol. 17, no. 4 – 5 Mayoux, L. 1995. Beyond Naivety: Women, Gender Inequality and Participatory Development. New York: Institute of Social Studies Mohan, G. 2007. Participatory Development: From Epistemological Reversals to Active Citizenship. Jakarta: Geography Compass Mohan, G. 2008. Participatory Development: The Companion to Development Studies. Washington, DC: Hodder Education. Osmani, S. 2008. Participatory governance: An overview of issues and evidence" in United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), Participatory governance and the millennium development goals (MDGs), United Nations p 3, available at http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028359.pdf Petr, M. 2013. The making and unmaking of community-based water supplies in Manila. Development in Practice, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 217-231. Schuurman, F. 2000. Paradigms lost, paradigms regained. Development studies in the twenty-first century. Third World Quarterly-Journal of Emerging Areas, vol. 21 no. 1, pp. 7-20 Sen, A. 2002. Development as freedom. Oxford, Oxford University Press Talen, E. 2000. The problem with community in planning. Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 171-183. Taylor, P. and Angeles, N. 2006. Participatory Development–meanings and practice, Paper presented at the Conquiry on Universities and Participatory Development. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Taylor, P. and Fransman, J. 2004. Learning and teaching participation: exploring the role of higher learning institutions as agents of development and social change. Working paper 219, Falmer, Institute of Development Studies. Taylor, P., Pettit, J., and Stackpool-Moore, L. 2006. “Learning and Teaching for Transformation: Insights from a Collaborative Learning initiative”, in Guerstein, P. and N. Angeles, Learning Civil Societies: Shifting Contexts for Democratic Planning and Governance. Toronto, Toronto University Press Tufte, M., and Thomas, P. 2009. Participatory communication a practical guide. Washington, DC: World Bank. Watkins, J. & Tacchi, J. (Eds.) 2008. Participatory content creation for development: principles and practices. UNESCO, New Delhi, India. Read More