Participatory Development as New Paradigm: The Transition of Development Professionalism
Prepared for the “Community Based Reintegration and Rehabilitation in Post-Conflict Settings” Conference
Washington, DC
October 2000
Ray Jennings
“People centered” principles have influenced the course of western culture over the last thirty years, often changing the bearings of education, business, public policy and international relief and development programs. These principles, larger humanist movements in the natural and social sciences and the emergence of post-modernism and chaos theory required organizations who were serious about adopting a “people first” orientation to change more than their tactics. It necessitated a paradigm shift. This newer paradigm maintained that big was not always better, centralized hierarchies were suspect, big outcomes may be born of small inputs and that a “more heads are better than one” philosophy would more readily sustain productive, durable change. Still, most of the changes inaugurated by a “people first” paradigm over the years were simple alterations to the style and fabric of old conventions. Resistance to the structural reform essential to sustain these changes was powerful. Few advances withstood erosion by the still intact traditional systems they were intended to transform. In international relief and development organizations, however, “people centered” practice became “participatory development” and great deal of persistent and determined effort went into fending off old dragons to ensure “participation” occurred in the design, implementation and evaluation of many programs.[1]
Defining Participation
The meaning of “participation” is often a rendition of the organizational culture defining it. Participation has been variously described as a means and an end, as essential within agencies as it is in the field and as an educational and empowering process necessary to correct power imbalances between rich and poor. It has been broadly conceived to embrace the idea that all “stakeholders” should take part in decision making and it has been more narrowly described as the extraction of local knowledge to design programs off site.
The result is an extraordinary mélange of context-specific, formal methodologies, matrices, pedagogies and ad hoc approaches to enhancing participation in humanitarian aid and development. They include: conscientization and praxis; rapid and participatory rural appraisal (RRA & PRA); appreciation–influence-control analysis (AIC); “open space” approaches; objectives-oriented project planning (ZOPP); vulnerability/capacity analysis and future search workshops.[2]
Participation is involvement by a local population and, at times, additional stakeholders in the creation, content and conduct of a program or policy designed to change their lives. Built in a belief that citizens can be trusted to shape their own future, participatory development uses local decision making and capacities to steer and define the nature of an intervention.
Differences in definitions and methods aside, there is some common agreement concerning what constitutes authentic “participation”. Participation refers to involvement by local populations in the creation, content and conduct of a program or policy designed to change their lives. Participation requires
