Skip to main content

Minor Truths

Louis Century

On participation and development bingo

By Louis Century - 12 months ago
The concept of “participation” in development has intrigued me for some time. Surely, development is better when beneficiaries are consulted, when local stakeholders are included in decision-making, when development projects are open-minded and inclusive – which is more or less what participatory development is all about.    

Unfortunately, “participatory development” often has little in common with such notions of participation. Since Robert Chambers popularized the term as far back as the 1970s, participation – along with other buzzwords like empowerment, capacity building and sustainability – has become a kind of prerequisite lingo for development work of all varieties, appearing in project proposals and donor reports of local and international organizations alike.

Regardless of the actual work being done, these terms are invoked to lend credibility to development projects. However, being able to converse in the language of participation is far different from implementing programs that are genuinely participatory – that empower/include/respect/uplift people. Indeed, the opposite is sometimes true – “participation” can be a tool of subjugation, used by organizations to justify predetermined approaches and power structures. Speaking participation is a powerful tool, and has nothing – or everything – to do with “actual” participation.

From Bill Easterly (via Chris Blattman):

The aid powers that be have resorted to the buzzword of “participation” to convey good intentions to give the “power to the poor” over aid affairs, while never in fact ceding any such powers.

From Jane Parpart, Rethinking Empowerment (2002, p. 166):

How can the same discourse be acceptable both to advocates of social transformation and to those who favour reform within the status quo? Can such a slippery term be truly transformative?

From Andrea Cornwall and Karen Brock, “What do buzzwords do for development policy?” (2005, p. 1056):

Their [buzzwords’] propensity to shelter multiple meanings makes them politically expedient, shielding those who use them from attack by lending the possibility of common meaning to extremely disparate actors.

After promulgating participatory development for over three decades, the ever-optimistic participatory godfather himself, Robert Chambers, expressed uncertainty about the consequences of the discourse ( Ideas for Development, 2005, p. 199):

Much energy is expended; but the structures remain little changed. Institutions reproduce themselves.

The problem is not participation itself, but the ways in which participation has been used, misused and overused to such an extent that the term itself no longer holds any real value. It is used by anyone to justify anything. The solution, for Cornwall and Brock, is to use meaningful language and avoid buzzwords. Bill Easterly writes, “Using clear language instead of buzzwords would at least force us to confront the reality of the battle for real democratic rights.” He suggests “liberty” as a little-used term in development that may still hold constructive value.

Yet, isn’t any word prone to inevitable appropriation? In a development game in which buzzwords are the gateway to project funding, what dignity is to be had in avoiding buzzwords, and therefore losing out on funding? There are plenty of thoughtful, hard-working aid workers who use buzzwords pragmatically to get admirable work done. That said, I also believe that the saturation of development discourse is a serious problem, and using clear language when possible will help to address this problem, however fruitlessly.

The title of this post is not a typo. I did not mean to write “On participation and development lingo.” Bill Easterly explains:

Some aid workers and development scholars are so jaded by these vague but ubiquitous buzzwords that they play “Development Bingo.” Whenever a development pro is giving a lecture, they hold Bingo cards marked with all the buzzwords and check them off whenever the lecturer mentions them in the talk. When they have got a full set of buzzwords, they stand up and shout “Development!” (No doubt leaving more than a few lecturers baffled.)

I find this hilarious. Does this mean that I am also jaded? Probably, yes. But not so jaded that I don't continue to ask, "What can be done?"
 

Would you like to comment?

You must be a member. Sign In if you are already a member.

Viewed 199 times

Page Options

Share