Content uploaded by Norman Uphoff
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Norman Uphoff on Feb 19, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
CHAPTER TWO
Participation's place in rural development: Seeking clarity through specificity
John Cohen and Norman Uphoff
Abridged from Cohen, J. and Uphoff, N. (1980) 'Participation's place in rural
development: Seeking clarity through specificity', World Development, 8: 213-235.
Popularity without clarity
Concern with problems of ‘participation’ in rural development has been growing in recent years.
Ever more documents and pronouncement proclaim the virtues of participation. The UN’s
Economic and Social Council has recommended that governments should ‘adopt popular
participation as a basic policy measure in national development strategy’ and should ‘encourage
the widest possible active participation of all individuals and national non-government
organizations, such as trade unions, youth and women’s organizations, in the development
process in setting goals, formulating policies and implementing plans’.i
In what came to be called ‘the Congressional mandate’, the US Congress in its 1973 Foreign
Assistance Act made clear that American development assistance is to be extended in ways that
involve the intended beneficiaries in the planning and implementation of project efforts, as well
as in the gains of development. Other donors take the same position.ii As the strategy of
development moves to what is called a ‘basic-needs’ approach, we find participation identified as
an essential element of this strategy.
Concern with participation is certainly popular, and one can hardly be against the concept,
broadly conceived. However, there is a real danger that with growing faddishness and a lot of lip
service, participation could become drained of substance and its relevance to development
programmes disputable.
Anybody dealing with problems of participation in development quickly finds that the term
itself is very ambiguous. Those who study participation are increasingly under pressure to define
it, often so that indicators can be generated to measure. We have been more concerned with
developing insightful ways of thinking about participation and have not become absorbed in
definitional efforts. For us, asking ‘what is participation?’ may be the wrong question, since it
implies that participation is a single phenomenon. We prefer to focus on what specific but
multiple activities and outcomes can be meaningfully understood, and supported, under this
rubric.
It seems instructive to think in terms of three dimensions of participation: (1) What kind of
participation is under consideration; (2) who is participating in it: and (3) how is this participation
occurring? Further, it is necessary to consider closely the context in which participation is
occurring, or intended to occur. This calls for careful attention to the characteristics of the rural
development project and the ways in which the environment will condition the kinds of
participation that are more or less likely, and more or less appropriate.
This view recognises that participatory situations and actions may veay widely. The term
refers to involvement by individuals, but it presumes that more than just a few persons are
involved; otherwise the situation or action is one entailing relatively little participation.
In the sections which follow, we first review issues and approaches to participation that have
shaped current concerns. Then we shall summarize a way to map out and clarify this complex but
1
critical development notion and to make it applicable to rural development projects.
Origins of Concern
Questions about the relationship between participation and social and human development have
been around since the ancient Greeks. One of the most extended considerations of the effects of
participation remains that of Aristotle. He analysed the Greek city-states to assess what
arrangements most likely contributed to human happiness and ‘the good life’. In his view,
participation in the affairs of state as a citizen was essential to the development and fulfillment of
the human personality. To be excluded from politics, as slaves were, meant that one would not
develop fully the faculty of reason, a sense of responsibility for others’ welfare, a disposition
toward prudent and balanced judgements. While participation did not unfailingly produce such
virtues in all persons, its denial contributed to ignorance and selfishness.
At the societal level, however, Aristotle found no clear relationship between the extent of
participation and the creation of ‘the good life’. He did not consider rule by the many to be better
than rule by the few if the majority were oppressive and disrespectful of individual rights.
Conversely, an enlightened monarchy or aristocracy was preferable to rule by the mob; yet rule
by only one or a few persons contained its own dangers of tyranny or oligarchy, denying to the
majority the opportunity for economic and personal improvement. So in Aristotle’s view, the best
state in the final analysis was one where there was broad participation, with no class dominating
others. The conditions for this appeared to be a reasonably equitable distribution of wealth and
widespread education, conditions commonly associated with development.
Aristotle’s analysis showed some relationship between participation and development but
did not answer any questions of causation. It appeared that some conditions of development at
the societal level were necessary for there to be productive participation, yet such participation
was needed for development at the individual level. Could a society be ‘developed’ if its
members were not? We should not blame Aristotle for leaving us with this riddle: which comes
first – development or participation?
The relationship is complex for many reasons. Participation, like development, has
economic, social and political dimensions, and what contributes to participation at one level may
not do so at another. Macro- and micro-dynamics are not necessarily the same. Moreover, most
considerations and conclusions are shot through with value judgements. We can try to be as
empirical and value-free as possible, and yet no assessments can escape normative implications.
It is no wonder that conclusions about participation and development are still arguable.
Participation in Aristotle’s time was a matter of voting, holding office, attending public
meetings, paying taxes, and defending the state. Those who were to get the benefits of citizenship
were expected to bear the costs of maintaining the public realm, and vice versa. In those days,
there was little consideration of ‘development’. Rather, one hoped and worked for prosperity
through agriculture, trade and artisan manufacturing. Ideas of development have obviously
changed a great deal, particularly in recent decades, owing to improvements in technological
possibilities and infrastructure as well as in social organization and human aspirations.
Development theory has undergone considerable change even in recent years, and its
implications for the role of participation in development have also been changing.
Although the following characterization is simple, we think it represents the recent evolution
of thinking about development. When the US and other more industrialized countries became
concerned about problems of ‘underdevelopment’ following World War II, they focused on
differences in the level of technology. A ‘technology gap’ between the more and less developed
countries was perceived. Foreign assistance was conceived as filling this gap through transfer of
2
technology.
The requisite participation by people was primarily the adoption of new technologies. This
assumed that these technologies would invariably be more productive or more beneficial, an
often incorrect assumption. Rather than examine whether the new technology was indeed
appropriate and productive, social scientists and practitioners all to often tried to explain why
people in less developed countries (LDCs) did not adopt it. Issues of people’s participation in
development were commonly framed in terms of people’s ‘traditionalism’ contrasted with the
‘modernity’ of their rulers. Non-participation was attributed to people’s ‘traditionalism’ and
‘resistance to modernity’, concepts by now thoroughly disputed.
By the 1960s, development efforts and foreign assistances began to focus on resources, and
theories dealt with various ‘resource gaps’ -- between government revenue and expenditure,
between exports and imports, between savings and investment. Increased investment in modern
capital formation was regarded as the crucial ingredient for development, and the corresponding
participation required from the people was accordingly measured in terms of resource
contributions.
The public in this perspective was expected to pay taxes, consume domestic products,
produce more for export, save and invest, and hold down personal consumption. This approach
to participation, which was thought to justify exclusion of the public from decision-making
participation, was hardly one to be enthusiastically approved by the public, whose members
might prefer to consume rather than abstain from consumption.
Both of these technology- and resource-based theories of development which are essentially
capital-centred imply a passive role for the majority of people who are not highly trained
technologically and not skilled in managing national resource flows. There were, during the
1950s and 1960s, two important approaches to rural development introduced in a number of
countries – community development and animation rurale – which aimed at mobilizing local
people’s participation. But neither had any strong influence on national or donor policies and
resource allocations. Here we note in passing that they both held fairly narrow views of
participatory activities and have been judged largely ineffective in transforming rural sectors.
As nearly two decades of experience with development effort could be examined by the late
1960s, a considerable revision of thinking occurred. Among the conclusions reached was that
there appeared to be a critical ‘organisation gap’ in LDCs (Uphoff and Cohen, 1974). Relations
in most countries between national centres and dispersed rural communities were weak or
truncated, thus stunting development potential and response. All too often, what linkages there
were were only one-way, top-down and extractive, in keeping with prevailing development
theory, rather than being co-operative and mutually supportive.
The emerging new approach to development put participation into a more active and
complete role, which we will be considering here. The greater concern with the use of labour as
an abundant resource, with greater employment generation and with the distribution of benefits
was markedly different from the development theory that emphasized technology and physical
capital formation, and which relegated popular participation to a derivative role.
Political participation
Aside from experiments like community development and animation rurale, when participation
was discussed in the social sciences during the 1950s and 1960s, what was usually referred to
was political participation, activities centred around electoral and other decision-making
processes. There was also some concern with what was called ‘social participation’. But neither
focus encompassed what might be called development participation. Social-science theory
3
regarded different levels of political participation – represented by voting, organizational
memberships, etc. – as a consequence of development or as a characteristic of different kinds of
political systems. As long as participation was defined operationally in terms of voting,
memberships, office holding, financial contributions and other activities relating to the workings
of a (presumably liberal democratic) political system, and as long as it was treated essentially as a
dependent variable, it was not really very relevant to development.
The prevailing view was that political participation would increase as development
proceeded, accepting Aristotle’s theory at the societal level. Probably the most important work
along these lines was by Almond and Verba (1963), The Civic Culture. In this, they found that
citizen participation was greater in the in US and Great Britain than in Germany, Italy and
Mexico. These two countries happened also to be the most advanced economically and
educationally. A ‘participant’ political culture was seen as growing out of economic and social
development, as roles became specialized and persons became oriented to the inputs and outputs
of government.
That a more active citizenry would result was also argued on the basis of cross-national
analysis by Deutsch (1961). He had found that political activity and demands increased as a
concomitant of such factors as economic growth, spread of mass communications, and
occupational mobility. There was thought to be a bundle of orientations and actions associated
with ‘traditional’ society, which would be replaced by a new, more participatory set with the
advent of ‘modernization.’
This theory fit conveniently with the prevailing economic development theory, stressing
technology transfer and capital formation. These instruments for development could be wielded
only by a highly educated ruling elite, able to understand advanced technology, to formulate
national development plans, and to manage the fiscal manipulations which would accelerate
capital formation. The ‘big push’ for development was to be made possible by the ‘big squeeze’
put on the majority.
What were seen as the requirements of economic development justified a ‘strong’ state in
which popular participation, unless controlled by the government elite, was an unnecessary
luxury and quite possible an impediment to increasing the GNP. Lacking technological
sophistication and having a strong desire for improved living standards like those of the elite, the
majority was either to be mesmerized by charismatic leadership into accepting the dictates of
‘modernization’ or to be kept in check by institutional channels controlled from above. This
would amount to ‘guided’ participation or even de-participation.
It is instructive that an extensive analysis of political participation done under the auspices of
the US Agency for International Development (USAID), in furtherance of its mandate under
Title IX, concluded that having either more or less participation was likely to contribute to
political instability, with attendant adverse implications for economic development. This
ambivalent conclusion may have derived from misspecifications of both ‘participation’ and
‘development’. Certainly, economic-development theory has undergone considerable change
since the late 1960s. But participation theory has unfortunately lagged behind, being largely fixed
on a fairly narrow view of political participation.
Development participation
Around the turn of the decade [the 1960s], more and more economists came to challenge the
prevailing view that capital was the prime mover in development. They stressed rather than
savings and investment the productive utilization of labour, LDCs´ most abundant resource, as a
way to achieve economic growth which was more socially efficient but also more equitably
4
distributed. The dominant role of advanced technology was modified to emphasize ‘appropriate’
technology, which if not always smallest in scale was more manageable by the majority. Instead
of relying on top-down planning, there was more attention given to decentralized, local
approaches to development. In this theoretical and practical context, popular participation
became important, having been peripheral when capital formation occupied centre stage.
Still, the impetus for concern with participation came not from economists or political
scientists so much as from development practitioners and members of Congress. Title IX of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1966 clearly recognized and supported the contribution of popular
participation in development:
Over the years, in exercising legislative oversight with respect to the administration
of the Foreign Assistance Program, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs has
observed that there is a close relationship between popular participation in the
process of development, and the effectiveness of that process.
. . . it has become increasingly clear that failure to engage all of the available human
resources in the task of development not only acts as a brake on economic growth but
also does little to cure the basic causes of social and political instability which pose a
constant threat to the gains being achieved on economic fronts.
. . . Unless the people benefit from development efforts, no meaningful progress can
result foreign aid. It is equally true that unless the people contribute to development
efforts, no meaningful progress can result from foreign aid . . .
The great potential for planning and implementation of development activities,
contained in the mass of the people of the developing countries, is still largely
untapped [and] slows down the achievement of the objectives of the foreign
assistance programme.iii
The amendment called for USAID to assist in furthering popular participation in connection
with development efforts overseas. But there was little clarity to the concept, and it gained little
operational effectiveness within the agency. To the extent that it was equated with political
participation and with political development, it was liable to some criticism as unacceptably
interventionist or ideologically ethnocentric, pushing American ‘liberal´ ideals on the Third
World.
To some, it seemed part of a larger effort to persuade late developing nations to base their
revolutions on Locke rather than Marx. And, to be sure, it was influenced by the Jeffersonian
myth of small-town democracy and the view of participatory America preserved in the writings
of de Tocqueville. Still, in so far as it challenged purely economic or technocratic ways of
approaching development projects, it was resisted by many practitioners.
One of the few tangible results of Title IX was the report of a conference on its
implementation, held at MIT in the summer of 1967 (Hapgood, 1969). This report offered some
useful definitions of ‘development participation’, but there was no evident impact on USAID
programming. Experience of practitioners and observers of development continued to mount,
however. In a trenchant analysis focused on African development experience, David Hapgood
addressed some cogent questions about development participation:
Advocates of peasant participation in decision-making run into the inevitable
5
objection that there are many decisions peasants are not competent to make. This is
true: if one asks how peasants can run an agricultural research station, the answer
obviously is that they cannot. But participation (or decentralization, or ‘peasant
power’) is not anarchy. In any decentralised system of agricultural development, the
state would continue to make a great many decisions. Participation simply means
that peasants would take part in the design of agricultural projects at the local level,
where their knowledge in some respects is greater than that of the technicians. In
addition to producing better plans, this might also release the latent creative and
managerial energy of the farmers (Hapgood 1968:10).
It was becoming apparent that trying to proceed with development in most LDCs by use of
coercive efforts was bearing little fruit. Perhaps some progress could be made in the industrial
sector by emulating Soviet or Japanese methods. But most developing countries, for better or
worse, depended on the growth and efficiency of their agriculture for overall economic
development, and this sector was not amenable to centrist or command approaches. In the
absence of popular support and co-operation, the result could indeed be stagnation.
In the field, at the project level, it was also becoming clearer that success was critically
affected by the extent of participation (or lack of it) in various aspects of development efforts. In
her review of rural development projects in Africa for the World Bank, Uma Lele found the
element of popular participation to be consistently important, noting for example the experience
of the Special Rural Development Projects in Kenya: ‘the neglect of local input has had an
unfavourable effect on the performance of the rural development effort’ (1975: 150). In general
she found:
Local participation may mean involvement in planning, including assessment of local
needs. Even if local people do not participate in planning, at the very minimum, they
should be informed of the plans designed for their areas if they are expected to
consent and to co-operate in program implementation. Participation in planning and
implementation of programs can develop the self-reliance necessary among rural
people for accelerated development (Lele, 1975:162).
An analysis of 50 programmes for introducing technological change found that the only effective
strategy for doing this was with popular participation.iv
Certainly, there were cases where attempts at fostering such participation were unsuccessful
in terms of development outcomes and, perhaps more often, the institutions and roles set up for
participation did not really provide this. Much of what was called participation, through village
development committees or consultations in village assemblies or local planning exercises, was
superficial or cosmetic. Still, the climate of opinion was becoming ever more favourable toward
participatory approaches. The alternative, non-participatory approaches had been unsuccessful so
often that practitioners were becoming ready to try something else.
The content of development efforts was also changing, to be more suitable for local initiative
and management. Technology is usually simpler when more appropriate. There is support now
for more reliance on labour for production and infrastructure creation, and this must ipso facto be
more participatory. It has been seen that, given conditions of security and profitability, poor
people can save and invest. The benefits of development are to be more broadly distributed now
that economists no longer agree that this would hold back development. Such a spread of
benefits appears likely to result with wider participation and to require it as well.
There are still grounds for specific criticism and objections to participatory approaches. The
evidence is not one-sided or overwhelming. But the tide of thinking has been turning. Whether it
6
will remain ‘in’ or will go ‘out’ again remains to be seen. In part, this will depend on how clearly
and how effectively participation is conceived and applied.
Getting specific about participation
Because participation is essentially a descriptive term, including numerous different activities
and situations, there is much room for confusion about its causes and effects, and its amounts and
distribution. It is necessary to be quite specific about what is meant or referred to in any
particular situation if we are to speak usefully about it in regard to any particular kind of rural
development effort.
Our framework is based on the key assumption that ‘participation’ is not a thing that either
exists or does not exist and which can be measured in the same way as a dam’s capacity or an
amount of agricultural production. While some studies treat participation as a clearly defined
concept capable of measurement, we have chosen to treat it as a rubric under which a number of
clearly definable elements can be assembled.31
While these elements can be related together under a framework called ‘rural development
participation’, it would be quite misleading to try to define the framework in such a way that a
single summary measure would result. Rather, empirical indicators of different dimensions are
sought. In this sense, participation is an overarching concept best approached by looking at
specific, more concrete components.
At the heart of our elaboration of rural development participation is the distinction between
dimensions and contexts of participation. Briefly, dimensions of participation concern the kinds
of participation which is taking place, the sets of individuals who are involved in the participatory
process, and then the various features of how that process is occurring.
The context of participation focuses on the relationship between a rural development
project’s characteristics and the patterns of actual participation which emerge. The context of
participation also includes the task environment in which the project operates. This directs
concern to historical, environmental and social characteristics which frequently have a strong
effect on emerging patterns of participation in a given rural development effort.
Dimensions of rural development participation
The framework that we have devised delineates three dimensions of participation. Basically these
frame the questions: what kinds of participation are occurring or desilred? who participates in
them; and how is the process of participation taking place? The latter set of questions introduces
important qualitative considerations.
What kinds of participation?
The main kinds of participation that warrant major concern are: (1) participation in decision-
making; (2) participation in implementation; (3) participation in benefits; and (4) participation in
evaluation. We find that the first three kinds of participation are reasonably well defined in the
approaches of development assistance agencies up to now, and there appear to be no grounds for
objecting to the fourth. While evaluative participation occurs less frequently than the others, it
deserves increased attention if development efforts are to be progressively improved. Its
underscoring here is consistent with efforts being made in the development community to
introduce systematic evaluation into most or all of its activities.
7
Together, these four kinds of participation constitute something of a cycle for rural
development activity. In practice, there is seldom a consistent or complete cycle of interactions.
Participation in these different activities is often quite limited or unequal. Yet they constitute a
tangible set of things to focus attention on and represent the major ways in which participation in
rural development can be assisted and assessed.
Participation in decision-making is what political scientists most often refer to when they
think of ‘participation’, whereas administrators are likely to focus on implementation
participation. On the other hand, economists have in the past stressed participation in benefits as
the most important thing. Nobody has been much concerned about participation in evaluation,
just as evaluation itself has been neglected.
Participation in decision-making and implementation pertains to the ‘inputs’ of rural
development, to plans, labour and other resources, while people’s involvement in benefits and
evaluation of development activity concerns the ‘outputs’ of this. (When considering ‘benefits’,
we note the importance of recognizing that harmful consequences, and not just benefits, can flow
from development programmes, an issue taken up below.)
Decision-making: Specifically, this kind of participation centres on the generation of ideas, the
formulation and assessment of options, and making choices about them, including the
formulation of plans for putting selected options into effect. For this reason, we distinguish three
types of decisions: (1) initial decisions; (2) ongoing decisions; and (3) operational decisions.
Initial decisions begin with the identification of local needs and how they will be approached
through a particular project. For most projects, this is the most crucial stage. Very early
decisions or implicit assumptions, when a project is only a ‘gleam in the eye’ of those persons
conceiving it, cast much of the project in concrete and remove a large number of options from the
decision-making processes which are to follow.
For this reasons, initial decisions generally described as ‘project identification’ need to be
carefully distinguished and focused upon. Such involvement at an early stage can provide vital
information on the local area and prevent misunderstandings as to the nature of the problem and
the strategies proposed for its resolution. Among the initial decisions in which local people can
be involved are whether the project should start, where it should be located, the ways it should be
financed and staffed, the paths by which individuals and groups will participate in the project,
and the contributions that they are expected to make.
It is possible that local people who did not participate in the initial decision may be asked to
participate in the ongoing decisions once the project has arrived in the locality. There is some
evidence that participation in ongoing decisions which occur after initial decisions have been
made, may be more critical to project success than such participation in initial design decisions.
Various opportunities exist for searching out new needs and priorities that the project might
respond to, as well as in operating the project in ways that best meet people’s needs.
We conceive of operational decisions as relating to specific local organizations which have
been established by the project or linked to the project in an effort to involve people in the
delivery aspects of the enterprise. Here, the focus is on voluntary associations, co-operatives,
traditional associations, women’s clubs and other organizations involved in the substantive
activities of the project. The framework we have elaborated points to participation with regard to
such matters as membership composition, meeting procedures, leadership selection, and
influences of such organizations.
Implementation: Rural people can participate in the implementation aspects of a project in three
principal ways: (1) resource contributions; (2) administration and co-ordination efforts; and (3)
8
programme enlistment activities.
Resource contributions can take a variety of forms, such as the provision of labour, cash,
material goods, and information. All such inputs are vital to projects seeking to incorporate local
resources in the development enterprise. Through such participation, local people lend their
labour to the digging of wells, give land for a school, contribute timber for the construction of the
health station, donate tools for working on a local road or money for financing community grain
storage bins, or provide crucial information on such topics as crop yields, tenure arrangements,
pest problems, sources of nutrition, and so on.
The relationship among the three dimensions of participation is illustrated clearly with regard
to resource contributions. It is particularly important to know who is contributing and how their
contributions are made, whether they are voluntary, remunerated or coerced, the degree to which
they are provided on an individual or collective basis, and whether they occur on an intermittent
or continual basis. These are particularly important questions since resource contributions can
often be both unequal and exploitative.
Participation in project administration and co-ordination is a second way in which rural
people can be involved in implementation. Here they can participate as either locally hired
employees or as members of various project advisory or decision-making boards. They can also
be members of voluntary associations which are playing a role in co-ordinating their activities
with those of the project. By having local people involved in administration and co-ordination, a
project may not only increase the self-reliance of the local people, by training them in techniques
of project implementation, but valuable inside information and advice may also be gained
concerning local problems and constraints affecting the given project.
Finally, perhaps the most common form of implementation participation is through
enlistment in programmes. It seems essential to distinguish between such enlistment and
participation in benefits because enlistment does not necessarily insure benefits. Indeed, harmful
consequences may result for persons who have enlisted in project programmes. For example, in a
project inoculating a herd against diseases like brucellosis, it is the reduction of morbidity in
one’s cattle herd that is the benefit, if this occurs, and not the inoculations themselves. Planting
HYV seed does not assure a better harvest, for the seeds may not be suited to the particular
environment or they may encounter weather that nullifies their yield potential. Indeed, if the new
varieties are more vulnerable to pests that strike the crop, farmers will be worse off than if they
had not ‘participated’ in implementation. The result is ‘participation in harmful consequences’.
Benefits: Enlistment in a project can lead to at least three kinds of possible benefits: (1) material;
(2) social; and (3) personal. While we would agree that participation in benefits is one of the
more passive kinds of participation, it has such a long tradition in the economic literature that it
should not be overlooked. Perhaps the only danger in focusing on this kind of participation is that
it can sometimes be quite high and lead observers to overlook the fact that participation in other
important aspects of the project, such as decision-making, has either not occurred or has been
quite limited.
Material benefits are basically private goods. They can, perhaps, be summarised as an
increase in consumption, income or assets. Consumption increases can result from higher yields
of food grain, and income benefits can result from the sale of surplus production. Increased assets
can be seen in the acquisition of land, livestock, implements, improved farm dwellings, savings,
and so on. As with all other aspects of participation discussed in this paper, it is essential to break
down aggregate data on material benefits by analysing who is participating and the process by
which it is occurring.
Social benefits are basically public goods. They are usually characterized as services or
9
amenities such as schools, health clinics, water systems, improved housing, and better roads.
Increasingly, as rural development projects are designed to be more ‘integrated’, and as efforts
are increased to improve the ‘quality of life’ for poorer sections of the population, there will be
more need to assess participation in such benefits. Particular attention should be given to the
amount, distribution and quality of these services and amenities.
Personal benefits are usually greatly desired though often not attained on an individual basis,
coming rather to members of groups or sectors as these acquire more social and political power
through the operation of a project. We term them ‘personal’ benefits to distinguish them from
‘material’ and ‘social’ benefits¸ but this does not imply that they are necessarily ‘individual’ in
their causes or effects. Among several possible project-generated benefits of this sort, three kinds
appear particularly important: self-esteem, political power, and sense of efficacy.
It is essential that a focus on benefits does not lead to a frame of reference that overlooks the
large number of possible harmful consequences that can follow from participation in a project.
These range from seeds that do not germinate or cross-bred dairy cattle that do not survive, to the
erosion of the local culture or the eviction of tenant farmers. While harmful consequences tend to
be obvious to many careful observers¸ they are often not studied in the same way that benefits
are. As suggested earlier, we concluded that in attempting to assess participation in benefits,
harmful consequences should also be studied. If they are, any differential rates of participation in
them will be significant data to determine. The main concern will be who is participating in these
adverse outcomes of the project. Once this is known, one will want to try to establish why, so that
remedies can be found if possible and can be built into a redesigned project.
Evaluation: Because there is little written on participation in evaluation, it is difficult to
conceptualize how this kind of participation might be analysed and measured. It appears that
there are three major activities through which rural people can participate in project evaluation.
Direct or indirect participation can occur in relation to actual project-centred evaluation. If
there is any formal review process, one would want to know who participates in it, how
continuously, with what power to achieve action on suggestions and so on. There may be
informal consultation only, in which case we would want to know the same kinds of things. Most
probably¸ unless specifically provided for in the project design, there will be no direct or indirect
evaluation in which local people or local leaders can participate. Government personnel may
themselves participate in annual budget reviews that fulfill a certain kind of evaluative function,
but local-level officials are generally not involved.
It is more likely that whatever local efforts and involvement in project evaluation there are
will occur through political activities of one sort or another. Where there are elected officials
such as members of parliament, local people and/or local leaders can voice complaints and
suggestions through this channel. Possible participation in elections at local, regional or national
(constituency) level can provide some opportunity for favourable or unfavourable local
evaluations to be fed into policy processes. Such inputs, however, are likely to be rather gross,
reflecting simply dissatisfaction or satisfaction with what the project has accomplished.
Where there are no participatory political processes available, local people and/or local
leaders can engage in lobbying activities – possibly through some organization like a co-
operative or peasant league – to communicate their views to the project or the government.
Alternatively, although not necessarily more effectively, there can be demonstrations or protests
if dissatisfaction is high enough to try to force officials to give attention to local grievances.
Indeed, sustained conflict and violence have been stimulated by some projects. When any of
these activities occur, they should be studied to determine if they provide important indirect
10
evaluation of the project or reflect other issues in the task environment. If the former, the content
of the protest as well as the characteristics of those making it should be the subject of inquiry.
Less direct would be participation in evaluative activities that aim at influencing public
opinion with the hope this will have the desired ramifications for continuation or possible
modification of a project. Usually such efforts seek to use the media, for example, through a
‘letter to the editor’, to promote a favourable or unfavourable opinion of the project or to suggest
some improvement. This is a very diffuse approach, but it might be regarded as one possible
form of participation in evaluation and as better than no such participation at all.
Who participates?
The participation about which most development agencies and governments are concerned these
days is that of the ‘rural poor’ or the ‘poor majority’. If they are considered in such an aggregated
mass, it is very difficult to assess their participation in any respect, since they are a large and
heterogeneous group. Their being considered as a group is not, indeed, something they would
themselves be likely to suggest. There are significant differences in occupation, location, land
tenure status, sex, caste, religion or tribe which are related in different ways to their poverty. To
talk about ‘the participation of the rural poor’ is to compound one complex and ambiguous term
with another, even more complicated and amorphous. If we want to deal usefully with the
problems of the rural poor, we need to begin making some analytical distinctions among them.
Our framework begins with a differentiated and flexible scheme intended to analyse the
entire rural community in general, as well as important groups such as the rural poor. We would
start by distinguishing four general types of participants whose characteristics warranted specific
attention. Depending on the setting and the goals of the project, certain characteristics of
participants would be more significant than others.
We would distinguish the categories of: (1) local residents; (2) local leaders; (3) government
personnel; and (4) foreign personnel. Each of these sets of persons can be, in turn, subdivided
into a number of groups. Moreover, they can be further classified with regard to a number of
important background characteristics that are known to be essential to the analysis of individual
participation.
The first two sets of people are those who have local roots, whereas the latter two are, to
varying degrees, outsiders. Local residents form a residual category that includes a large and
heterogeneous group made up of self-sufficient farmers, tenants of landowners, farm labourers¸
herdsmen, craftsmen, and so on. It is this group of people who are usually the target of a rural
development project. Local leaders have a long-run involvement in the area in which they work.
Usually they are people who are considered local elites, such as landowners, merchants and
professionals.
The definition of what a local leader is will vary from area to area. Basically there are three
types of such leaders: (1) informal leaders, such as clan chiefs religious figures, influential
professionals and local notables; (2) associational heads elected or appointed for a formal
organization, such as a co-operative league president, the chairman of a voluntary association, or
the leader of a local trade union; or (3) local office holders, such as headmen, elders, mayors or
tax-collectors. Sometimes the nature of officeholding, given requirements to uphold government
interests, makes it difficult to distinguish such local leaders from government personnel.
Government personnel are assigned to an area for a certain period of time. Even if they are
from the local area, their career rests with the bureaucracy at the centre, and their future is not
usually determined by what happens in the area. This being the case, they are subject to transfer.
They usually have higher education and social status than do locals. It is important to look at the
11
participation levels of these people to evaluate what role they may be playing in promoting,
controlling, or blocking project activity.
Some consideration should be given to foreign personnel. While often not important, they
can at times play a crucial participatory role. Among them would be included foreign donor
employees, heads of private voluntary associations, missionary personnel, expatriates, or
immigrants who live and work at the local level.
What personal background characteristics are important in a given situation depends on the
circumstances and the kinds of participation possible. A wide range of such characteristics exists,
and the analyst must make judgements about which are the most significant in the given case.
Among the most important of the background characteristics that we would suggest are: (1)
age and sex, with special attention to male – female differences; (2) family status (household
head vs. other members); (3) educational level (functional literacy, formal schooling); (4) social
divisions, if relevant, according to ethnicity, religion, caste, language or region of origin; (5)
occupation; (6) level of income and sources; (7) length of residence, and distance of resident
from the project, service or activity; and (8) land tenure or employment status (tenant with or
without security, casual vs. permanent labourers, etc.).
Each of these background characteristics can be subdivided and amplified in a number of
ways. Perhaps the best illustration of this would be the division of the occupational characteristic
into agriculturists and non-agriculturists. Here important distinguishing features may be: (1) size
of holding; (2) ownership status; or (3) percentage of income from agricultural production only.
Likewise, one could distinguish among: (1) large-scale landowners; (2) small-scale owner
cultivators; (3) tenants, either renters or sharecroppers; and (4) agricultural labourers. Even
tenants might be subdivided into those without permanent leases and those who have
considerably security on the land.
Non-agriculturalists might be subdivided in a similar way into: (1) businessmen; (2) artisans
or craftsmen; (3) professionals; (4) day labourers or domestic servants; (5) students; and so on,
into a number of relevant classifications. This kind of breakdown could be applied to any of the
suggested background characteristics. The degree to which one engages in such a breakdown
depends on the type of project one is evaluating and the important characteristics relevant to that
project.
Several principles are involved in deciding which information to gather for assessing who
participates in what activities. First, not all of these characteristics are relevant for all projects.
Obviously, age and sex would be crucial for a family-planning programme, while one might want
to know whether certain ethnic minorities or immigrant groups or casual labourers and their
families were utilizing health facilities. Second, often the data are not readily available for
making some of these distinctions, although some fairly simple, even observational data can be
used to make meaningful categories. Finally, where persons are using services such as schooling,
credit or clinics, the data on participant characteristics can be gathered. Rather than make
complete enumerations, simple sampling (like three random days a month) can be done. Where
surveys are conducted, most of the information on characteristics can be obtained.
How is participation occurring?
The how dimension adds something qualitative to the analysis of participation. Attention to it
generates insights into such questions as why participation takes place, continues or declines, and
why it has the particular patterns which it does. The amount, distribution and trends of
participation can be assessed basically by looking at the who and what dimensions. But one
would not want to be oblivious to the ways in which participation is occurring, such as: (1)
whether the initiative for participation comes mostly from above or from below; (2) whether the
12
inducements for participation are more voluntary or coercive. It may be relevant to analyse and
compare over time: (3) the structure and (4) the channels of participation -- whether it occurs on
an individual or collective basis, with formal or informal organization, and whether it is direct
participation or indirect representation. Further consideration should often be given to: 5) the
duration and (6) the scope of participation -- whether it is once-and-for-all, intermittent or
continuous, and whether it extends over a broad or narrow range of activities. Finally, it will
usually be useful to consider (7) empowerment: how much capacity people have to obtain the
results which they intend to obtain from their involvement in decision-making and
implementation.
It is important to focus on who instigates participation. Does the initiative come from the
grass roots or from the national centre? More specifically, does it flow from the people
themselves, from local leaders, from project staff, from local or national officials, or from foreign
personnel? Basically, this particular characteristic focuses on the distinction between top-down
and bottom-up initiative for a project or program. As a project progresses, one frequently finds an
increasingly number of initiatives coming from the grass roots level, although the opposite trend
may emerge.
Incentives to participation are particularly important to consider. Usually one is interested to
know whether, or to what extent, the participation is voluntary or coerced. However, often this is
not easy to distinguish where as there can be a continuum between voluntarism and coercion,
since participation usually flows from a combination of positive and negative inducements.
Indeed, there can be remunerated participation which is somewhere in between (pure)
voluntarism and coercion.
Coerced participation is generally regarded as inconsistent with democratic values, yet there
might be cases where it is productive and justifiable, such as ensuring compliance with a range
management scheme that pools cattle, adhering to herd size limits and following rotational
grazing requirements. Participation in the regeneration of forest areas or watersheds could be
voluntary, remunerated or coerced. Actually, impetus to participate and people’s motivation for
participation can be combined to reveal several different types ranging from volunteered
participation initiated from below to enforced participation initiated from above.
The organizational pattern greatly affects the process of participation, contributing to
effectiveness as well as sustainability. One of the first questions here is whether a person enters
into participation as a member of the group. For example, can any farmer get credit from the
project directly, or must he belong to a co-operative in order to be eligible? Another question
concerns the complexity of the organization. Are there well-defined leadership roles and rules
governing activities, and are there fairly clear standards for evaluating the performance of
leaders? If organizations are too complex, it may be difficult for local people to engage in any
meaningful participation in them. Local elites can often ‘capture’ more complex organizations
and use them to promote their own ends. Indeed, complexity might be designed into a project to
keep participation under close control.
The process of participation is also affected by whether one participates directly or is
represented by someone selected by oneself and others. Direct participation probably has greater
impact on building individual capacity. Unfortunately, it is often very difficult to achieve because
of the numbers of participants who might be involved. It is also often difficult to get this kind of
participation in rural areas without adequate infrastructure, because people may have a great deal
of trouble finding time and means to journey to far-away meetings. In general, indirect
participation is more likely to occur with decision-making activities, and direct participation is
more typical of participation in either benefits or implementation.
The time required of the participant affects the amount of participation which occurs. The
13
longer the participatory experience continues, and the more regular it is, the greater the likelihood
that there will be some formal organizational basis for this. Projects should carefully monitor
changes in the frequency of participation, giving particular attention to the emergence of more
regular and continuous patterns of involvement as well as to any trends in the opposite direction.
The intensity of participation that one finds in a given project is frequently related to the
range of project activities involving participation. Here, one should consider the number of
possible situations in which various members of the groups being analysed could participate. It is
also important to determine whether project procedures make participation in one activity a
precondition for participation in other activities. For example, farmers may have to belong to the
project co-operative society before they or other members of their families can attend adult
education classes.
Careful attention should be given to the number of activities that people are participating in
as well as to the effects of that range on their overall participation activities. It may be that
multiple participatory activities will lead to inadequate participation in all of them. On the other
hand, the multiple activities may reinforce each other in a way that not only returns more
concrete benefits to the participant, but also raises his or her awareness about the importance of
actively seeking to engage in and affect the broader society.
Careful evaluation should also be given to the degree of power which participants have.
Empowerment of participation ranges from no power or influence to extensive power, and it is
important to know whether or not participation is simply a formal action with little meaning, or
an activity which allows the individual to gain greater control over situations that would alter his
or her life.
From our reading of experience we would give particular attention to the structure and
channels for participation. That participation can be individual and unorganized is quite clear;
but it is not so evident that it will be effective or sustained in the absence of some organized
expression and support. One of the hypotheses that is most worth examining is the extent to
which organization is a crucial factor conditioning the amount, kind and success of participation,
recognizing that these may vary for different tasks or for different groups.
It is submitted that considering these several how characteristics will illuminate the
possibilities, dynamics and consequences of participation if applied appropriately to the
assessment of who participates in what rural development activities. They may be combined in
interesting and different ways, or compared to each other in various matrices.
The dimensional nature of the how dimension means that making just a single qualitative
assessment is seldom worthwhile. According to most views of participation, that which is
initiated from below, voluntary, organized, direct, continuous, broad in scope, and empowered
would be the ‘most’ participatory. But judgements about anything diverging from this ideal can
differ widely, and it may not be ideal for all situations.
This is not only because people have different values and expectations about participation,
but because the relevance of different aspects will vary. Indirect participation through
representatives may be quite appropriate and satisfactory in some situations, and not in others.
For maintaining irrigation canals, periodic participation may suffice, whereas continuous
participation may be needed for handling the distribution of water.
By analysing the how dimensions, we want to alert persons to the ways in which participation
by certain groups (who) in given activities (what) can differ. Even if no quantitative value is
attached to these aspects, one should be sensitive to what they are, and particularly to such shifts
as may occur from a bottom-up to a top-down initiative, or from a voluntary to a more coerced
performance.
14
Participation for what?
It is essential to consider also the purposes of participation. Indeed, for what may prove to be a
critical fourth dimension of participation. Because purposes are essentially normative,
disagreement when assessing them is even more likely than with the more descriptive dimensions
discussed above. Quite a range of different purposes for participation can be listed, such as
Chambers (1974) offers in his book on rural development.
The difficulty with constructing a standard analytical framework for purposes is that their
assessment and even their factual basis shifts, depending on whose perspective one takes.
Farmers taking credit for use of new maize varieties may be seen as reducing national food
deficits or even as helping to stabilize the regime from a governmental point of view, while the
farmers can see it as possibly augmenting family income and consumption.
As with all objectives, they may be intended or unintended, stated or unstated and achieved
or unachieved. It is certainly useful to consider the purposes for which participation is undertaken
or advocated, but as yet, their analysis cannot be as rigorous as for the three dimensions outlined
already. One of the key questions to ask is whether the purpose which the authorities have in
mind for getting people to participate is the same as, or compatible with, the purpose the people
themselves would accept as their own.
Where governments want things from or for the people that the people do not want for
themselves, we know right away that certain ambiguities and even obstacles affecting the
intended participation are likely. We can imagine sinister purposes such as encouraging critical
participation from the public in order to identify malcontents (some thought this was done during
the campaign in China to ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’). On the other hand, the opportunities
for participation provided by a government to bolster its support could be used to try to bring its
downfall.
Questions can be raised about participation’s purposes in terms of who is supposed to benefit
from it – participation for whom? According to Holm (1972), the Village Development Councils
in Botswana were allowed to operate only under tight political and administrative control and the
government gave no funds for local projects. So popular participation appeared to be mostly an
instrument for bureaucratic domination of the village modernization process according to Holm.
This may or may not be true, and it may or may not be common elsewhere, but it is certainly a
valid question to consider in evaluating participation.
Some would dismiss activity such as Holm describes as not constituting ‘participation’. But
we think it more appropriate to make assessments of the kind of activity involved and with what
effect, regarding participation as a matter of degree rather than being simply present or absent, or
assessed according to a single metric, given that there are various kinds of participation possible
(and not all are equally desirable). An analysis which identifies who is participating how in
decision-making and implementation, and who is participating in benefits and evaluation should
concretely illuminate ‘participation for whom and for what?’
In the original article, we included in our analysis a consideration of how the environment of
participation – i.e., its context -- also has a bearing on the planning and assessment of
participation. Here we simply note that one should also take account of the setting(s) of
participation as well as its purpose. This extends the three-dimensional framework for
understanding participation into a fourth and even fifth dimension.
Emerging Generalizations
Based on what we know so far, we would set forth the following major points:
15
(1) Participation is not a single thing. It is, rather, a rubric or heading under which a number
of distinct, though related, activities can be analysed and promoted.
(2) Participation for development is not the same thing as participation in politics. The
voting, campaigning, lobbying and so on associated with institutionalized politics may
be part of developmental participation, but more and different things should be
considered with regard to participation in development.
(3) Participation is not just an end in itself, but it is more than a means. The debate as to
whether participation is to be regarded as an end or only as a means is fruitless, since
people can consider it as either or both. Pronouncing it one or the other will not end what
is essentially an ideological dispute.v
(4) Participation is not a panacea. While its neglect has often been devastating to project
results, simply introducing it will not necessarily make projects successful. In many
instances, participation appears to be necessary but not sufficient for good results. There
are many reasons why getting productive participation started is difficult, and why the
results are not always those intended. Having ‘more’ participation is not always ‘better’
as its value depends on what kind of participation, under what circumstances and by and
for whom?
(5) There is a connection among different kinds of participation. This has not been well
demonstrated, in part because participation has not been analysed and studied in a
disaggregated way. But there is a good deal of fragmentary evidence that in projects, ex
ante participation such as in decision-making is related to ex post participation in
benefits. This seems especially true when one is concerned with the poor majority, as
paternalistic approaches neglecting the organization and mobilization of the poor to work
and act on their own behalf seem to produce limited results. We would be the first to say,
however, that more work needs to be done on understanding these relationships. We
need to know more to be able to specify what kinds of participation, and under what
conditions, produce the desired results.
(6) Participation even in ‘development’ terms is inescapably ‘political’. Broader
participation is likely to change the use and allocation of resources in society. Indeed,
this is why it is often advocated, since such change is associated with the development
process. Such change is subject to wide-ranging differences in the value judgements that
people make about it, and these should be openly acknowledged. If persons refuse to
recognize and accept this aspect of participation, their co-operation in participatory
development approaches is doubtful. We are not saying that participation is always
political in the sense that it will adversely affect the government. Indeed, support of
participation can have the opposite effect of building a stronger political base. However,
participation is likely to have some effect on political relationships one way or the other,
or in many ways.
Our overall conclusion is that participation is possible and under many conditions desirable
to achieve the development goals set by development agencies and LDC governments. It can be
difficult to promote and the results are not always predictable. The knowledge base to work from
is not yet consolidated. But there is enough experience and theory so that incorporating more
elements of participation into development strategies is feasible and appropriate.vi
16
References
Chambers R, Managing Rural Development: Ideas and Experience from East Africa (Uppsala:
Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, 1974).
Cohen J. M and Uphoff N. T, Rural Development Participation: Concepts and Measures for
Project Design, Implementation and Evaluation (Ithaca NY: Rural Development Committee,
Cornell University).
Deutsch K. W, ‘Social mobilization and political development’, American Political Science
Review, Vol. 55, No. 3 (1961), pp. 493-514
Hapgood D, ‘The politics of agriculture’, Africa Report, Vol. 13 (1968).
Hapgood, D. (ed.)The Role of Popular Participation in Development, Report of a Conference on
the Implementation of Title IX of the Foreign Assistance Act (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology Press, 1969).
Holm J, ‘Rural development in Botswana: three basic political trends’, Rural Africana, Vol. 18
(1972).
Lance L. M and McKenna E. E, ‘Analysis of cases pertaining to the impact of western technology
on the non-western world’¸ Human Organization (1975), pp. 87-94
Lele U. J, The Design of Rural Development: Lessons from Africa (Baltimore: John Hopkins
Press, 1975), p. 150
Uphoff N, Learning from Gal Oya: Possibilities for Participatory Rural Development and Post-
Newtonian Social Science (London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1996).
Uphoff N, Cohen J. M and Goldsmith, A. A, Feasibility and Application of Rural Development
Participation: A State-of-the-Art Paper (Ithaca, NY: Rural Development Committee, Cornell
University, 1979).
Uphoff N, Wickramasinghe, M. L and Wijayaratna, C. M, 'Optimal' participation in irrigation
management: Issues and evidence from Sri Lanka, Human Organization (1990), 49:1, pages.
Uphoff N and Wijayaratna, C. M, Demonstrated benefits from social capital: The productivity of
farmer organizations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka, World Development (2000), 28:11, 1875-1890.
17
NOTES
18
i Commission for Social Development. Report of the 24th Session, January 1975, Official Records of the
Economic and Social Council 58th Session, Suppl. No. 3, UN Document No. E/CN.5/525, para. 4. This
resolution was in response to a report by the UN Secretary General on ‘Popular participation and its practical
implications for development’, UN Document No. E/CN. 5/496 (August 1974)…
ii See, for example, the World Bank’s statement, Rural Development: Sector Policy Paper (Washington:
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 1975); and United Kingdom, Overseas Development:
The Changing Emphasis in British Aid Policies (London: HMSO. Cmnd. 6270, 1975).
iii These statements are from reports on Title IX, cited in Hapgood (1969).
iv See Lance and McKenna (1975). Of the 50 programmes, 29 were partial or total failures. Most of the
successful ones had a participation element. Alternative strategies considered were pressure, education and
hands-off (introduce technology and leave).
v Participation might best be viewed as a proximate but instrumental goal in development, much as employment
can be viewed in development strategy, as both an end and a means. If one seeks to promote employment only
as an end to be maximized, there could be some rather superficial and unproductive, even wasteful efforts made
in this direction when, in fact, employment is valued mostly for other benefits associated with it. At the same
time, it does have some value in its own right. People who are simply provided with income without jobs tend to
feel less fulfilled and satisfied as human beings.
‘Make-work’ participation, provided for its own sake, has little to commend it. Endless committee meetings
are appreciated by nobody. On the other hand, getting benefits without any personal role in their creation of
acquisition is not generally held to be satisfactory. We conclude, on both normative and practical grounds, that a
middle position is justified in the debate as to whether participation is to be regarded as an end in itself or (just)
a means to other ends. It appears to be more than a means, but at the same time, it is not simply an end that is
always good in itself, therefore to be maximized. Optimization is a better objective (Uphoff et al. 1990).
vi We have gone into these and other issues in a state-of-the-art paper by Uphoff, Cohen and Goldsmith (1979),
with reference particularly to supportive participation by groups like the landless, women, and ethnic minorities,
and in development activities like agricultural research and water management. Our analytical work was
followed up by a decade-long involvement in introducing participatory irrigation management in Sri Lanka,
extensively documented and analyzed in Uphoff (1996) and Uphoff and Wijayaratna (2000). These publications
show the productivity of rural development participation, and present and evaluate a catalytic strategy for
supporting it.
