The role of people in development programs has undergone many transformations since the beginning of the development project. From being viewed as undifferentiated, passive recipients of goods and services in the 1970s, their role, in the 1990s, shifted to that of influencing and controlling development initiatives, decisions, and resources (McGee, 2002 pg. 93, 96). Earlier, people were divorced from the development process, and both, the people in the agency as well as the project beneficiaries were considered as non-existent entities (McGee, 2002 pg. 93). This later on, gave way to a people-centric approach, which has led to varying levels of success. In this paper, I analyze the role of people in development projects, and then explore how people’s role is contingent upon the type of participatory approach used.
Development projects started with a vertical approach between the donors and recipients, or in other words, the North and the South (McGee, 2002 pg. 103). I think that this divide between the developed and the developing nations reinforced the colonial approach of oppression, the only difference being that this approach was masked by aid. Development programs progressed with the idea that the outsiders knew best (McGee, 2002 pg. 94), and operated in a centralized, top-down, rigid and, bureaucratic planning approach. They operated with a fixed framework and agenda, which was shoved down the throats of project beneficiaries whether they liked it or not. Technical and financial aspects of development programs got more precedence than the people. There was also the childlike faith that technology could free the world of all its problems, especially poverty (McGee 2002).
By the 1980s, there was a growing sense of discontentment and dissatisfaction because the development projects were nowhere closer towards achieving any of the envisioned aims. Four concerns that led to a change in development approaches were the alienation of beneficiaries, paternalistic behavior by the developed nation-states, centralized control of planning, and the rise of monetarist economics that made developing countries tighten their restrictions on the social sector. This led to the emergence of the idea of people’s participation in development projects and planning in the 1990s (McGee, 2002 pg. 95). Given the fact that development projects were conceptualized as a means of alleviating poverty, it took nearly 40 years to figure out that people were essential for the success of projects. Concepts of bottom- up approaches, decentralization, power sharing, and partnerships gained acceptance whereas the ‘outsider knows best’ approach was frowned upon (McGee 2002).
However, participation still had ambiguous definitions, and different development practitioners constructed their own meanings of what place people would occupy in development programs. For example, the World Bank emphasized information sharing and consultation, and took on a conservative approach by separating itself from the issue of democratization. The Department for International
Development’s (DFID) objectives were empowerment and efficiency, while the United Nations Development Programs (UNDP) had political leanings, which focused on the role of the civil society and strengthening local governance (McGee 2002 pg. 97, 98). Participation became a nebulous concept and each agency adopted a method of eliciting participation that was compatible with its own goals and objectives. Official agencies relied on developing pre-identified initiatives, and then recruiting stakeholders for their programs by using rapid rural appraisal (RRA), whereas certain NGOs relied on
participatory rural appraisal (PRA) that enabled people to develop their own programs, and plans (McGee, 2002 pg. 99). Thus, two different schools of participation emerged where on one hand, the ‘participation in projects’ orthodoxy designed methods to get people to participate in their projects, and on the other hand, the participatory development school sought to define development as conceived by stakeholders (McGee, 2002 pg. 101).
Additionally, the notion of a community being a homogeneous body with common interests, values, and concerns came to be contested. An appreciation of the splits in communities based on class, caste, gender, and spatial location drove home the fact that power relations play a major role in empowering certain social groups (McGee, 2002 pg. 105). Participation was critiqued on the grounds of further marginalizing weaker groups, preventing them from registering their opinion, and having any substantial influence in the community’s decisions (McGee 2002, pg. 106, Cornwall 2003). In India, watershed development is promoted as a tool to alleviate rural poverty. Here, I had a chance to observe the meetings of a watershed committee. The people who had the most influence in the group were landowners, while the landless and the herders were marginalized and had no role to play in the decisions of the committee. They were expected to contribute as labor for the construction phase of the
watershed program. The NGO, on the other hand, claimed that they had achieved 100% participation from the village community, and the project was termed as a ‘success’.
Cornwall and Brock (2005) paint a picture of how words such as participation, poverty alleviation, and empowerment have become commonplace in the development vocabulary insofar as they have lost all their value. These words promote action, but I think that they are still cloaked with the agenda of funding agencies, or of the influential people in the community. Certain sections of people are still viewed as objects that passively accept what is given to them, resulting in charity and token participation, the total opposite of empowerment. I believe that ignoring the traditionally marginalized
sections is a disservice to the community because it reinforces notions of inequality among them. This is not to discount the entire approach of participation, but just to keep in mind that a new fuse of life in needed to approach the problem of inclusion of the marginalized in the planning and decision making process (Cornwall 2003).
Cornwall (2003) notes that the obstacle to equitable development lies in the power disparities that objectify and subjugate people. Communities have their own notions of equity and fairness, and participatory approaches have to approach these issues with sensitivity. Cornwall (2003) argues that only by changing the rules of interaction in public spaces and by letting the marginalized don influential roles can a transformation in power relations be achieved. This translates into addressing personal
behavior and attitudes of the people (McGee, 2002), but not by imposing the outsider’s assumptions of what is right behavior and perceptions of reality (Goulet and Wilber, 1992 pg. 470). People’s right to define development needs to be secured, rather than forcing people to change just because an outsider thinks that they are old-fashioned. Development, then, does not need an all-encompassing definition, but has to evolve according to people’s priorities, at that point in time.
Works Cited
Cornwall, Andrea (2005). “Whose Voices? Whose Choices? Reflections on gender and
participatory development.” WORLD DEVELOPMENT 31, 8, 2003:1325-42
Cornwall, Andrea and Karen Brock (2003). “What do Buzzwords do for Development
Policy? A Critical Look at ‘Participation’, ‘Empowerment’, and ‘poverty reduction.”
THIRD WORLD QUARTERLY 26, 7, 2005:1043-60
Goulet, Denis & C. Wilber. “Human Dilemma of Development,” in C.Wilber & Jameson,
eds. POLITICAL ECONOMY OF DEVELOPMENT AND UNDERDEVELOPMENT.
1992. Pp. 469-477
McGee, Rosemary. “Participating in development,” in U.Kothari & M.Minogue eds.
DEVELOPMENT THEORY AND PRACTICE: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES. 2002, pp.
92-116
No comments:
Post a Comment