|
Editorial, volume 2, number 3, 1991
Community participation is a concept to which most organisations involved in development work pay homage -- whether multilateral institutions, international aid NGOs, local development agencies, or membership associations at national or grassroots level. But if participation is to be more than just an article of faith to be invoked at convenient moments and then forgotten, we must be critically alert to the precise interpretation it is being given in each context: Who are the people or agencies defining the `participation' and representing the `community'? On what is their authority actually based? Whose interests are not represented in the activities proposed, and why? What practical control over resources is able to be exercised by those whose lives are to be affected, at each stage of decision-making? And, crucially, how does the specific project or activity in question relate to the broader political, economic, social, and cultural structures conditioning the women and men who are supposed to participate in it?
Each person brings different needs, perspectives, and aspirations to bear on the process of participation: but not all of these will be mutually compatible; and many will go ignored or unvoiced. Commonly, the nature and degree of actual participation in development is dictated by those who already exert political and economic power: the international funding institutions, civil or military authorities, local elites, patriarchal social organisations and structures, and so on. The motives behind their push for participation may not be especially benevolent and have much more to do with social control, political co-option, or economic dogmatism than with collective empowerment or even community development. The only real options of the disempowered may be to join in, and potentially influence the directions which are being taken; or to decline what is on offer and work to create alternatives. As we are reminded by Betsy Hartmann in her `Viewpoint' on population and the environment, effective participation depends on genuine choice, which, in turn, entails real power -- not just being on the receiving end of external interventions, however well-intended these might be.
John Clark's article challenges NGOs to move beyond the emphasis on individual projects which has so dominated development thinking, funding, and practice over the last thirty years. As he sees it, the time-honoured relationships based on the transfer of resources from international donors for the implementation of tangible projects in developing countries are rapidly becoming obselete. However successful an individual initiative may be, its longer-term impact and sustainability will be determined by the broader policy environment in which it operates. Thus, he argues, the future for NGO collaboration lies in international coalition-forming to press for the changes in policy which will alter the overall context, and enable local-level participation to acquire more meaning and strength.
Peter Sollis follows this with a timely account of the way in which the thinking of the World Bank and other multilateral agencies has changed with regard to the role of national and local NGOs in the implementation of development projects. Sollis shows how this very shift relates to the broader concerns within the financial institutions about influencing the policy environment in which development takes place. The involvement of NGOs is seen as the way to build in the community participation which in turn guarantees the successful outcome and sustainability of the projects in question. His detailed studies of the constraints experienced by the World Bank in trying to transplant its model from Bolivia to Guatemala provide a useful insight into the extent to which NGO participation can take place genuinely on its own, autonomous, terms.
T. K. Sundari Ravindran starts from the perspective of women within a community or neighbourhood, and systematically examines the complex range of factors, including gender roles, which come into play in determining their well-being and health-seeking behaviour. The methodological issues she raises are, of course, relevant to fields other than health. What they also illustrate is that participation is not politically or culturally context-free; and that non-participation must never be taken at face value or thought to imply indifference.
Ranjit N. Ratnaike and Will M. H. Goh look more closely at the dynamics between a community and the professional staff of a local development project intended to benefit the disadvantaged. They use parallels drawn from the conventional doctor-patient relationship to suggest how the role of the foreign aid-worker lends itself to misinterpretation; and how the behaviour of people within the community will also be affected by the perceptions and expectations they entertain of the project itself. Effective consultation -- in other words, ensuring a decisive role for community members from the very outset -- is seen as the key to meaningful participation in, and co-responsibility for, the development project.
In their Project Note, Oscar Mejia, Doris Hernandez, and Patricia Ahern pick up the theme of participation in their account of an adult literacy programme. Again, their conclusion is that we have to look beyond the confines of the project per se to measure the effectiveness and relevance of its impact on people's lives. Rather, the acquisition of specific skills takes place in a setting in which participants come to see themselves as part of a critical force for social change in their country.
Finally, we are pleased to share with readers the response of the Chilean psychologist and human rights worker, Elizabeth Lira, to the articles on armed conflict which appeared in an earlier issue of Development in Practice (Volume 1 No. 3). We are including also a number of Conference Reports, including two which record some of the debates on environment and development which have received so much prominence this year.
With this issue, we conclude the second year of Development in Practice. Many readers have written to offer their support and encouragement, and we hope that the Journal is continuing to meet expectations. We would be delighted to hear your views on any of the published items, or to advise on potential contributions. Subjects which we particularly hope to cover over the coming year include population control and reproductive rights; childhood and ageing as development concerns; changing relations between NGOs, the State, and civil society; human rights issues in relief and development; and the role of networks and coalitions in setting the policy agenda. Whether on these, or other topics, we particularly encourage readers directly involved in development work to submit material -- in this way, we can ensure that Development in Practice lives up to its name and serves as an effective forum for practitioners and policy makers around the world.
Deborah Eade
Oxfam (United Kingdom and Ireland)
August 1992
 Previous |
Next Abstract 
|
