What are the implications of the various concepts of empowerment for development practice? This paper argues that a failure to define empowerment can weaken its value as an agent for change and as a tool for analysis. Empowerment can be broadly defined as a progression that helps people to gain control over their own lives and increases their capacity to act on issues they themselves think are important. A multidimensional approach to empowerment must consider both individual capacities and collective action to address inequalities that cause poverty. Awareness of the different forms of power and their dynamic nature can help to identify the strategies needed to shift unequal power relations.
Debates about the concept and operation of power generate various interpretations of empowerment. There is debate about whether change in power is brought about or constrained by social structures beyond peoples’ control (such as class) or through individual and collective action (agency). Such debates can affect the choice of empowerment interventions and activities. For example, structural capacity building of local organisations can often overlook how these become dominated by more affluent and powerful members of society. Attention should be paid to combining and sequencing both approaches.
One way of understanding empowerment is in terms of types of power relations. These stress the difference between power over (the ability to influence and coerce); power to (the ability to organise and change existing hierarchies); power with (power from collective action); and power within (power from individual consciousness).
Alternatively, the Power Cube is an empowerment concept which describes how power is used across the three continuums of spaces, places and power:
- Spaces might be closed, invited or clamed: Closed spaces are arenas of power that are closed to all but an elite; invited spaces are fora into which outsiders are invited by policymakers; and claimed spaces can provide the less powerful with a chance to develop their agendas and create solidarity without control from power holders.
- Places refer to levels of engagement – local, national, or global.
- Power refers to the degree of visibility of power. Visible power is negotiated through formal rules and structures; hidden power refers to influence over decision making; and invisible power is that which is internalised, influencing how individuals think of their place in society.
Given these varied approaches and concepts, donors need to consider how to develop shared principles (not prescriptions) of empowerment with their government and country partners. While partner involvement in defining empowerment and formulating strategies to address it can result in greater ownership and more creativity, it can also reduce coherence across the organisation. Further implications for partnerships include the following:
- An increased emphasis on advocacy may require different competencies from partners. A shift from a focus on grassroots service delivery to advocacy can have implications for an organisation’s credibility and impact.
- The context influences the feasibility of certain empowerment activities and partnerships. The way in which empowerment is approached needs to be adapted to the cultures and histories involved. Analysis of a partner’s own understanding of empowerment can pre-empt possible cultural and value-based tensions.
- Contextual risk assessment is needed. Partners need to make informed choices about whether to expose themselves to potential retaliation from power holders.
