Delos Santos, Carmela N.

SW 111
2018 – 03193 Prof. Jake Espenido
Participatory Development
As the class reports moved on from discussing the theories of social change, the new cycle of
topics had started and focused on social development. This report revolved around the ideology of
participatory development, some accepted definitions of it, its emergence and history, the
perspectives it has, the criticisms the approach faces, and its relevance to social work and why it
is important to discuss this approach of development.
The report started with exploring what participatory development is by listing down various
definitions that were considered to be accepted universally. The first definition is given by Asian
Development Bank in 1996, stating that “Participatory development is a process through which
stakeholders can influence and share control over development initiatives, and over the decisions
and resources that affect themselves.” (ADB, 1996) Stakeholders, in this matter, would mean an
individual or a group of individuals who has an interest in something, specifically business.
Traditionally, one would think of employers, business owners, and business agencies but in this
era, even the government, trade associations, development agencies, and the local community can
be considered as stakeholders. The next definition was taken from Cornwall’s book in 2002,
wherein she wrote that “Participatory development seeks to engage local populations in
development projects. It was introduced as an important part of the "basic needs approach" to
development.” (Cornwall, 2002) Another definition was given by Leal in 2007, discussing a new
perspective, saying that “Strategically favorable situation for building upon local people’s decision
making capacity and grassroots action.” (Leal, 2007) And to understand further what participation
is and its functions, Rahnema’s The Politics of Participation in 1996 was discussed last. In here,
he gave four functions of participation, the first being the cognitive function which indicates that
participation is done to have new knowledge that can be used to ‘create a new image for
development’, one that is fitting for the society’s modernization process. Next is participation’s
political function, where the objective is to institutionalize and legitimize development as a means
of ‘helping’ the poor and underdeveloped. For the instrumental function, participation is done to
make projects implemented work by the people providing new ideas, techniques, and avenues
beneficial for development. Lastly, the social function of participation can be seen as bringing
development to the society and helping the individuals achieve and fulfill their needs. (Rahnema,
1996)
But where did the participatory development originate, and how did it emerge? In Cornwall
and Eade’s Deconstructing Development Discourse: Buzzwords and Fuzzwords in 2010,
participatory development is said to originate as a counter-hegemonic approach to radical social
transformation. (Cornwall and Eade, 2010) The era of modernization in the post-world war had
created a divide between the developed and the developing countries. There was a growing rate of
poverty for the developing countries which made the threat of people creating movements to stop
the inhumane modernization. The failure of the developed countries to fix underdevelopment had
a crisis of maintain the status quo, and so this approach to development was given attention. As
the 1980s came, participatory development gained legitimacy and funding agencies demanded
participation to be a condition of granting funds. (Claridge, 2004) With this, the shift from a radical
movement to a neoliberal world order happened, and it led to the people’s political blindness as
they perceived the approach as good because it gives them power to participate, making them
forget the power dynamics still existing in their respective societies. This issue now calls for
participation to be revised and restructured as we enter the 21st century, aiming for an approach
with a broader context of social and political struggles in order to achieve a social transformation
that would benefit not only the developed countries, but also the developing. (Cornwall and Eade,
2010) A table given by Claridge in 2004 sums up the timeline of this approach.
Era Trends in Participatory Process
1950s and 1960s The emergence of modernization signaled the
rapid industrialization and growing influence
of technology. Scientific knowledge is given
importance, and inventions were applied to
agriculture. It is also the start of having a
divide between the developed and developing,
the rich and the poor.
1970s – “Need for Alternatives” Main concern is “giving the voice to the
voiceless”, especially for the poor in the
developing countries. The adaption of
Participatory Rural Appraisal happened,
taking the place of the problematic Rapid
Rural Appraisal.
1980s – “The Participation Boom” From top-down to a bottom-up approach, there
is an acknowledgement of indigenous
knowledge. There is a flourish of activity,
especially from non-government
organizations.
1990s – “The Participation Imperative” Participation became a synonym of sustainable
and good. The popularization of participation
caused a political blindness, and problems of
the societies were glossed over and forgotten.

After discussing the emergence and understanding the premise of participatory

development approach, the report went on and explored the perspectives of the approach. The first
that was tackled is the social movement perspective. According to Cornwall and Eade, this
perspective had radical roots founded from the Marxist-oriented school of Participatory Action
Research, and was inspired by Paulo Freire’s works, specifically the Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
(Cornwall & Eade, 2010) The main objective of this perspective was focused on the social
transformation of the cultural, political, and economic structures within a society which produces
poverty, oppression, and exploitation rather than the usual aim for economic development and
prosper. (Cornwall & Eade, 2010) To simply put it, participation is the main priority and the goal
in itself in this approach as said by Roberts in 2017. Furthermore, it is emphasized that full
community participation allows communities to participate in processes and movements that
actively abolish the existing hierarchies of power and the oppressive societal structures. (Roberts,
2017) With this, the people move toward a genuine development, wherein they are the ones who
will determine their own visions and create their own development goals and agendas. As what is
quoted in the book of Cornwall and Eade from Rahman, the social movement perspective revolves
around the idea that “self-conscious people, those who are currently poor and oppressed, will
progressively transform their environment by their own praxis.” For Paulo Freire, one of the main
supporters of this perspective, development is the struggle to be fully human. It is something that
can only be achieved when humans are being themselves, when they realize and value their own
decision-making powers that are free of exploitative, oppressive, and dehumanizing contexts.
(Cornwall & Eade, 2010) To sum it up, the social movement perspective prospers on the notion of
development as something that emerges from and is important to social transformation, and that it
is a result of individual conscientization and subsequent collective action. (Cornwall & Eade,
2010)
The second perspective is something controversial and widespread. It is called the
institutional development and was originally implemented as a battlehorse to eliminate the radical
movements that were slowly growing, wherein according to Rahnema this perspective was called
the ‘redeeming saint’, and was implemented at the time of the shock treatment done by the World
Bank and International Monetary Fund’s Structural Adjustment Programs. (Cornwall & Eade,
2010) It was said that this perspective prospers in a ‘bottom-up, people-friendly approach’ which
‘puts the last first’ as it aims to address the poverty in the developing countries that are in need of
help in order to cope up with the developed countries. (Chambers, 2010) Therefore, participation
in this institutional development perspective had become synonymous with the terms ‘sustainable
development’, ‘basic needs’, ‘capacity building’, and ‘results-based’. It has gained currency and
trade value as agencies have used it for their development project contracts to gain progress in the
competitive market, furthermore, the development agencies like the United Nations and World
Bank had incentivized and made it a requirement for funding. (Cornwall & Eade, 2010)
In the emergence of the institutional development perspective, different approaches had
also emerged and tried to address the growing disparity between nations since the start of the
modernization era. The first methodical package to be used was the Rapid Rural Appraisal, where
the decision-making power was still from the agencies doing the projects, and the people’s
participation were limited to providing information, which sometimes takes only a day, as a means
of background formation or data gathering of the agencies. (Beckmann et al., 1997) Because this
approach was a failure and was not able to give the people the appropriate participation that they
needed, a new approach was created, something that was said to be better and more
acknowledgeable. It was called the Participatory Rural Appraisal, an approach which valued the
people’s own interests and concerns more than the development project that was being planned to
implement. In here, from being just the sources of information, the people are now facilitated by a
team of trained facilitators to have a decision and planning meeting for three days to a week. The
approach geared towards a more interactive mutual learning and the people’s potentials and
awareness are built up and honed in order for them to have the capacity to decide on the changes.
It followed the following process, starting from an initial situation assessment, then having a
communication with the community, establishing the participatory design of messages and
discussion themes, planning the communication methods and material development, later on
managing and implementing the planned project, and lastly, its monitoring and evaluation.
(Beckmann et al., 1997) This approach was later on renamed again into Participatory Learning and
Action, and with it came more different approaches like the Appreciative Inquiry, the Community
Based Needs Assessment, and the Stakeholder Analysis. Apart from the ones given, there was also
the emergence of the Participatory and Integrated Development, wherein workshops were done
and the results from these were put in a broader, long-term frame of institutionalized development
programs. This approach offered facilitation just like the Participatory Rural Appraisal, but this
time with more emphasis on the indigenous knowledge of locals and it ran on a demand-responsive
basis. Furthermore, it enhanced the collaboration of different agencies and organizations, and it is
the time where non-government organizations prospered and worked hand in hand with each other.
(Beckmann et al., 1997) The last methodical package that was discussed and is still reliving the
idea of the institutional development perspective is the Integrated Area Development approach.
This approach focuses on the underdeveloped areas, specifically areas with rich resources and has
outstanding development potential but is currently facing underdevelopment, underemployment
and unemployment, and a low-income economy. It strives to make every area of a country progress
at the same phase of other developing areas. This has synonymous ideas to regional development
planning, and in the Philippine context, the approach is implemented per area of a region. This
approach started in the country under the administration of Ferdinand Marcos, wherein one
example is his Letter of Instruction No. 1499, s. 1985, stating that the region of Aurora is an area
of underdeveloped rich potential and with Integrated Area Development approach, programs,
feasibility studies, and small-scale high impact projects that are said to be beneficial for the region.
With this, the establishment of the National Council on Integrated Area Development (NACIAD)
was pushed through by the implementation of Executive Order No. 835 and was said to be given
a grant assistance by the European Economic Commission. (Philippine Official Gazette, 1985)
But how is the participation in these approaches executed by the development agencies?
One of the incorporation methods, as explored by Pretty in 1994, is the passive participation. In
here, participation is almost non-existent, and the people are only told what would happen or what
is already happening in their community without being asked about their opinions or having their
responses listened to. (Pretty et al., 1995) The class had expressed dismay in this type of
participation, and had said that until today, this passive participation is experienced by many
societies, one example is the indigenous people not being consulted about the land that they own
even when it is protected by their rights, specifically the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC).
The next participation method discussed is the participation by consultation wherein people are
consulted and agencies listen but what the agencies will get in the data gathering would not be
necessarily given importance and used. It will depend if the agencies would abide by the people’s
concerns and requests, a still very backwards thing to do especially if the agency pushes through
with a development project that would be a disadvantage for the people and beneficial only for
them. (Pretty et al., 1995) Another participation was the ones categorized into groups, the first
being participation by collaboration where people form groups so that they can decide on the
predetermined objectives related to the project and function from there, and the second being the
participation by a joint decision-making where people interact to create a joint analysis that leads
to action plans and establishment of new local institutions that would support their goals, or maybe
strengthen the previous institutions to support their ideas. (Pretty et al., 1995) The last method
discussed was the only one that seemed fitting for the social movement perspective, and it is called
the empowerment participation. In here, people start with themselves through self-mobilization,
and from there, they start taking collective initiatives independent of external agencies and
institutions in order to attain social transformation and change the existing oppressive development
programs.
The criticism was discussed after everything, and these were mostly directed at the
institutional development perspective. Cornwell and Eade had said that this perspective has hid
through the ploy of ‘empowerment’, ‘self-reliance’, and ‘participation’, not showing the people its
real intent to benefit through the implementation of development projects. (Cornwall & Eade,
2010) Its actual intent is for people to have a false consciousness and direct their anger towards
the failed governance in order for the development agencies like the United Nations or World Bank
to have some sort of control on the state and be able to handle the economy and its resources, and
later on place it on the global competitive market where they would instill it as something that
would give everyone equal access, but in reality, only the developed countries would benefit.
(Moore, 1995) One example of this is the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals,
wherein it implies that the people are empowered because they participated in the making of plans
but when assessed critically, the participation is directed towards the advantage of free-market
economy’s projects which enable the agencies, especially the rich, to have a fuller control on
people’s lives. (Cornwall & Eade, 2010) Another criticism, one that is noted with agreement in the
cass, is that the participation in the institutional development perspective is for the preservation of
the status quo. It is, of course, to make the people feel that they have some sort of say in the projects
because they are incorporated. But Sarah White had stated that incorporation, rather than
exclusion, is the best form of control for the people in a society. She expounded that sharing in
participation is not equal to sharing in power because the truth is, it is the capitalists and the
agencies that implement the projects who hold the power, not the people. (White, 1996) Now, with
all these criticisms, there is a belief that participatory approaches are more likely to succeed when
it is done by have a wider, more radical political plan which is aimed at giving importance to the
people and securing their deserved rights. (Cornwall & Eade, 2010) Moreover, this participation
would prosper if it was not for the rich, rather for the marginal and subordinate groups, with the
process of self-conscientization and a progressive collective action, one that is not blinded by the
institutions and organizations that surround them, seeing clearly the power dynamics and the
structural composition in their own community.
To understand better the participation theory, Jake asked us a question. “Is the personal
political, or is the political personal?” And another one, “can development be non-political?” He
then discussed the true meaning of the ideology in the first question, explaining that the personal
is political because in everything that one does, there is a power dynamic that comes into play.
Even with what someone would call a misfortune, for example not being able to have a job that
would end up in blaming oneself, is something that the system had produced which continues to
oppress and exploit the people. A lot of people in a society does not realize this, hence would
continue living a life in a state of political blindness. This is well-hidden through what the system
calls ‘participation’ and ‘empowerment’, and so they can continuously do their so-called
‘development programs’ that benefits only the capitalists, the rich, and those who have power, and
leave the people wallowing in their ‘personal misery’. The process of legitimization and cooptation
comes into play, further making people believe that the system is actually serving everyone’s
interest. Therefore, with this idea explained thoroughly, the class had clearly learned that
development can never be not political. And that it would always serve a side, which is usually for
those who have the resources and the power. Development is something that we should all be wary
of, and that there will be no genuine development if there will be no changes in the current political
system that steps on the society’s people.
Finishing off, the report had taught us that not because there is a usage of the term
‘participation’, does not mean it is good for all. And so, the relevance I had thought of in terms of
the profession that I am pursuing is to value each and everyone’s capacity to realize their own
situation, build upon the principles of self-determinism and participation, and learn my limits in
helping the people conscientize. In turn, I would also hear what the people would say and
eventually learn from them and their experiences. Also, the emphasis on ascribing to
transformational social work rather than believing in institutional development bears in the mind,
and that a social worker should not forget to be critical in everything that they encounter. Lastly,
one should never forget that the personal is political, therefore the political is personal.
References
Asian Development Bank. (1996). Participatory Development Processes in Selected ADB Projects
in Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Social Infrastructure Sectors. Retrieved from www.adb.org
Beckmann, G. et al. (1997) The History of Participation Approaches. Retrieved from
www.fao.org/ Introducing Participatory Approaches, Methods, and Tools
Claridge. (2004). Desiging Social Capital Sensitive Participation Methodologies.
Cornwall, A. (2002). Making Spaces, Changing Places: Situating Participation in Development.
Cornwall, A. & Eade, D. (2010). Deconstructing Development Discourse: Buzzwords and
Fuzzwords.
Leal, P.A. (2007). Participation: The Ascendancy of a Buzzword in the Neoliberal Era.
Marcos, F. (December, 1985). Letter of Instruction No. 1499, s. 1985. From the Philippine Official
Gazette
Pretty et al., (1995) Typology of Participation. Retrieved from www.fao.org/ Introducing
Participatory Approaches, Methods, and Tools
Roberts, T. (2017 October). The Centrality of Community Participation for All Community
Development Work. From www.thegrassrootscollective.org
White, S. (1996). Depoliticizing Development: The Uses and Abuses.