Catalog

Participation means many things to many people.

We have all “tried” it. If not in our work, then at least we have experienced it—or a lack of it—in our lives. In this way, all of us are experts in participation, and we can build on that rich experience when dealing with development.

As a development concept, however, participation can be confusing because it involves processes such as information sharing, consultation, debate, and empowerment.

Perception differs as well: some see participation as a technique to implement better projects, while others see it as a development goal or part of a rights-based development approach.

But what is it? And how relevant is it for our work in ADB and in other development organizations?

Top

First, some personal history. I became familiar with participation approaches in the ‘70s during my studies under a prominent participation pioneer in Finland.

She belonged to a global network of participation gurus, many of them from Asia. I applied what I had learned in my research on development projects in Sri Lanka and Sudan, and later in the field programs of the International Labour Organization (ILO). The concept, obviously, is not new.

ILO was one of the first international organizations to apply participation in its poverty and rural women’s employment programs. It also had a unit for participatory research and its application.

Unfortunately, earlier experience often is lost and institutional memories are short, with each generation of experts and development practitioners reinventing much of the work.

With ILO, we worked with urban and rural poor women in India and elsewhere in South Asia, assisting them in their concerns relating to employment and poverty.

Not only did we learn how to facilitate participation of the poor, but we also found out about the constraints they faced in their communities. We learned that participation alone, without addressing social exclusion and existing power balances, would not be enough.

We realized that participation of the poor is inadequate without involving the powerful and well-to-do in a dialogue to find solutions. Such a dialogue also has to involve national-level officials in meeting with the poor and discussing the problems they share, and the challenges the officials face at the national level.

We learned that many people, particularly those who consider themselves to be “experts,” found it difficult to listen to the poor and vulnerable people and to really hear what they had to say.

The experts—sometimes including those from nongovernment organizations, and even some officials— thought that they could learn little from these people, who are uneducated, come from the lower class, or who were perceived to be ignorant or socially “lacking.”

And, of course, deeply rooted social hierarchies with clearly established authority played a role, too. My impression was that experts felt threatened—as if consulting poor people could harm their authority. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.

The need to consult the poor and include local expertise should not imply that outside expertise is not required. Both are required—and are complementary. It is necessary to consult the poor and learn about their constraints so that solutions can be found.

At the same time, we need experts to think of various solutions, to present alter- natives, and then to discuss them with the poor. We also need to have experts to help understand the larger socioeconomic and historical contexts or the systemic causes of problems, such as poverty, which are not immediately visible to the people.

Top

Sharing information does not come naturally to all, and information can be used as a vehicle of power—from which people and groups can be excluded.

Poor and vulnerable people often not only lack education but also access to information that they could use to advance their position. Even worse, outright misinformation can dupe the poor and make them vulnerable.

This often creates mistrust, which is dangerous to social stability and peace. This lack of trust harms prospects for future cooperation that societies—including the global society—need to survive and thrive.

Trust is a public good to be protected just as much as the air we breathe or the water we drink.

The participation process is helpful in sustaining and building trust, cooperation, and partnerships that are required not just for the survival of societies and organizations but also for sustainability of development interventions.

Top

Consensus is increasing that participation should not just be limited to improving the quality of development projects, but should also be required to gain public support for development interventions.

This is becoming even more important with the shift from project work to policy-based lending. Policy development usually involves changes that cross diverse interests of various groups.

It is important to have public consultations to involve people through democratic processes to negotiate their support, which is required to avert unnecessary social strife and risks.

Knowledge and innovation are now also necessary for the competitive economic edge. Innovations emerge from the environment where knowledge is valued and where different views and opinions are encouraged and aired in an open participatory manner.

In a somewhat similar vein, organizations need to become increasingly open and flexible to benefit from the diversity of views and approaches so that they can better respond to the sudden risks that emerge from increasingly volatile and ever rapidly changing socioeconomic environments.

Finally, for participation to succeed, it should not be conceived in terms of technique or even as a goal, but rather in terms of its authenticity.

I end with a quote from P. R. Lawrence, which was published in the Harvard Business Review 32 (3) of 1954:Participation is not something that can be conjured up or created artificially.

Participation is a feeling on the part of the people, not just the mechanical act of being called in to take part in discussions.