Since the 1970s, there have been a series of high-level declarations of support for ‘popular participation’ by international development organisations. But what is actually meant by the ‘participation of all stakeholders’ in policy formulation on poverty reduction? This paper explores the changing perspectives on participation for poverty reduction over the last two decades. It argues that greater attention needs to be paid not only to enabling people to make and shape their own spaces for engagement, but also to enhancing local accountability and global institutions that affect people’s lives.
‘Popular participation’ broadly aims to give poor people a chance to exert greater influence and control over the decisions and institutions that affected their lives. Yet there is a need for greater clarity about what this means – who participates, when and how. Participation has evolved since it came of age in the 1970s: The late 1980s saw participation in development projects as necessary and desirable to ensure their efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) was seen as the tool to operationalize participation in the early 1990s.
- Institutionalising participation and making contested arenas of decision-making and the design of projects/policies amenable to recognised ‘techniques’ brings its own costs. It can mask issues of power, conflict and contestation.
- There is concern over the moral claims to authenticity embodied in ‘invited participation’ initiatives such as Participatory Poverty Assessments.
New conceptions of citizenship and perceptions of rights offer a new, more politically aware, conception of participation. Nevertheless, challenges remain.
- The language of rights importantly refocuses attention on social justice and the active pursuit of rights. The right to participate is intrinsic to other rights. Citizenship is now understood as not only a bundle of rights bestowed by the state but also something which citizens have responsibility to actively pursue.
- Short-term project cycles, budgetary procedures, lack of flexibility/transparency over resources and sectoral/policy priorities dictated from elsewhere constrain deeper and wider processes of involvement. Furthermore, more respect must be paid to the time, energy and opportunities that participation may cost poor people.
- Institutional willingness and active citizen engagement are preconditions for a more democratic development process. Full participation is usually impossible; optimum participation should be the aim, focussing on who actually participates, how and why.
- Greater clarity on these questions will help to gain a clearer understanding of the contribution that different modes of participation can make to poverty reduction.
- Inviting people to participate is not enough. Those excluded by poverty and discrimination to take up opportunities for influence and control must be enabled to do so. They themselves must also exercise agency through the institutions, spaces and strategies they make and shape.
