Participatory Development

The theory of Participatory development represents an evolutionary process from the global, aspatial, top-down strategies that dominated early development initiatives to more locally sensitive methodologies.The idea of participation is heavily influenced by theories of development and is therefore highly varied and complex due to different theoretical positions.This paper tries to engage with various approaches to the participatory development theory based on the analysis of historical, ideological and practical record.It deals with the scholarly articles written by Sam Hickey, Giles Mohan, Kristian Stokke and Frances Cleaver. The dominance of the top-down approaches to development was largely a result of modernization theory which was dominant in the 1960s.Modernization theory tells that for developing countries to develop they need economic growth along the path already travelled by western countries.This has been heavily criticized and other development theories have highlighted disparities.From the modernization point of view participation meant involvement of the community in the delivery of the welfare programmes with the purpose of increasing the acceptance and efficiency.This conceptualisation of participation and empowerment is based on a harmony model of power.This implies that the empowerment of the powerless could be achieved within the existing social order without any significant negative effects upon the power of the powerful.Contrary to this interpretation the radical notion of empowerment (Post-Marxism) focuses on 'bottom-up' social mobilisation in society as a challenge to the hegemonic interests within the state and the market.For the empowerment of marginalised groups, it envisages a structural transformation of economic and political relations towards a radically democratised society. Giles Mohan and Kristian Stokke articulate dangers of localism as a paradigm shift towards more localised, empirical and inductive approaches. They explain that this change has catered the agendas of some vested groups only. The neo-liberal projection of civil society as an organised pressure on autocratic and unresponsive states that promote democratic stability and good governance is the challenge to the centralisation of the top-down state through planning labelled in terms of 'stakeholders' and 'local governance'. Exploring the decentralised service delivery, participatory development, social capital and social movement, authors argue that the focusing on participation will underplay the inequalities and power relations as well as national and transnational economic and political forces. Despite social capital has become an important analytical concept and policy tool within development, it has a 'downside' also in the sense that associations can work against the assumed common interests of society. The problems concerning to its localism and tendency to ignore the state's role in enabling or destroying social capital question the finding f Robert Putnam. The authors also demonstrate the mutually reinforcing relations between social capital formation and the democratic state in the globally appreciated high levels of social development and redistributive reforms of Kerala. The authors explore the emergence of radical democracy and evaluates the influence of these ideas on development theory. The deep analyses of social movements shows that most cases are characterized by a growing complexity of alliances and conflicts between collective actors in civil society and actors within the state. Here their conclusion is that decentralisation constitutes a fluid and flexible discourse that can be utilised by different ideological interest. In this context of wide criticism, Sam Hickey and Giles Mohan try to relocate the notion of participation within a radical politics of development. For them participation needs to be theoretically and strategically informed by a radical notion of ‘citizenship’, and be located within the ‘critical modernist’ approach to development. Using empirical evidence from contemporary outlooks and experiences they prove the relevance and pragmatism of participatory development, though with certain conditioning circumstances. The failure to engage with the issues of power and politics raised by the language of ‘empowerment’ is prime criticism posed by the participatory approach. Democratic decentralization, though represents the institutionalization of participation for devolution of power, failed to overcome socio-economic disparities. More than the idea of decentralisation, the political project in which an organised political force champions is motive for the success story in various countries. NGOs and social movements as potential agents of change face severe limitations in seeking to be genuine agents of transformative development through participatory approaches. However it can’t be denied that they have produced initiatives capable of promoting participatory development in ways that involve transformation. Frances Cleaver observes a more complex understanding of issues ofefficiency and empowerment in participatory approaches. He argues for a radical reassessment of the desirability, practicality and efficacy of development efforts based on community participation. This involves not just rethinking the relationship between differently placed individuals and historically and spatially specific social structures, but also the role of individuals, households,communities, development agencies and the state. Finally he discusses a number of specific areas for further work which may contribute to resolving some of the paradoxes of participation. My conclusion is that the decentralisatin has to be considered as the mean to the self empowerment rather than as an end in itself. It should provide a positive environment for the self actualization of each individual.The global pressure for a restructuration of administrative mechanism urges for an active participation of all stake holders. In some sense it may can add to Samuel P Huntingtton’s idea of ‘Waves of Democracy’ as a Fourth Wave or as the extension of Third Wave. Communities that have a say in the development of policies for their locality are much more likely to be enthusiastic about their implementation. It can’t be ignored that participation has a role in enhancing civic consciousness and political maturity that makes those in office accountable.The whole debate makes it clear that participatory methods require careful analysis of the local context in which it is being applied. Further research is required in this area to identify opportunities and pitfalls across the breadth of participation methodologies.