THE THEORY OF CO-MANAGEMENT AND ITS APPLICATION IN SOUTH AFRICA’S PFM POLICY
5.2. THEORIES OF PARTICIPATION AND CO-MANAGEMENT
5.2.1. The concept of participation
Participation is fundamental in development thinking and practice. It is widely held by governments, funding agents, donors and civil society actors such as non-governmental organisations and multi-lateral agencies that development that does not enlist people’s participation in the development process cannot be sustainable and long lasting (Kumar, 2002).
However, despite this near consensus on its importance, there is contention about the meaning of participation and how it can be achieved. For example, the Economic Commission for Latin America (1973, in Kumar, 2002:24) defines participation as:
“a voluntary contribution by the people in one or another of the public programmes supposed to contribute to national government, but the people are not expected to take part in shaping the programmes or in criticising its contents”
Cohen and Uphoff (1977), on the other hand, assert that the concept of participation is more encompassing because it includes people’s involvement in the entire decision-making process.
They state that:
“participation includes people’s involvement in decision-making programmes, in implementing programmes, their sharing in benefits of development programmes and their involvement in efforts to evaluate such programmes” (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977 in Kumar, 2002:24).
Participation is operationalised in various ways in different development interventions and this indicates that it is conceptualised differently. These differences are best demonstrated by the various typologies or models of participation that have been developed (see for example, Arnstein, 1971; Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996; White, 1996, Kumar, 2002). Most of these models distinguish between different kinds of participation based on the degree to which local people are actively involved in development processes. For example, White (1996, cited in Freeman, 2000) distinguishes between nominal; instrumental; representative and transformative participation (see Table 5.1). Thus the distinction between, for example, the extremes in White’s (1996) model is based on the degree to which there are “elements of empowerment of the public and capacity building to ensure equity and social justice, with action to fight inequality” (Freeman, 2000:35).
Table 5.1. Types of participation (after White, 1996:8, cited in Freeman, 2000).
CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
Nominal Legitimisation and inclusion, with the main function of display.
Instrumental Government funding for infrastructure and services reduced, leading to public involvement for efficiency and cost sake, in order to instrumentally achieve a local facility or service.
Representative Public ensured a voice to provide project sustainability and support, and where people are able to express their own interests.
Transformative Empowerment takes place, where the public have the practical experience of being involved in considering options, making decisions and taking collective action to fight injustice.
White’s participation typology is not unlike that of Pretty et al. (1995, in Kumar, 2002), which describes seven types of participation. These seven types are: passive participation;
participation in information giving; participation by consultation; participation for material incentives; functional participation; interactive participation and lastly self-mobilisation (See Table 5.2).
Table 5.2. Typologies of participation (Pretty, 1995, in Kumar, 2002:25).
Typology Components of Each Type Passive
participation
People participate by being told what is going to happen or what has already happened. It is unilateral announcement by an administration or by project management; people's responses are not taken into account. The information being shared belongs only to external professionals.
Participation in information-giving
People participate by answering questions posed by extractive researchers and project managers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. People do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings of the research or project design are neither shared nor checked for accuracy
Participation by consultation
People participate by being consulted, and external agents listen to views. These external agents define both problems and solutions, and may modify these in the light of people's responses. Such a consultative process does not concede any share in decision-making and professionals are under no obligation to take on board people's views.
Participation for material incentives
People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return for food, cash or other material incentives. Much in-situ research and bio-prospecting fall in this category, as rural people provide the resources but are not involved in the experimentation or the process of learning. It is very common to see this called participation, yet people have no stake in prolonging activities when the incentives end.
Functional participation
People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project, which can involve the development or promotion of externally initiated social organization. Such involvement does not tend to be at early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather after major decisions have been made. These institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may become self-dependent.
Interactive participation
People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation of new local groups or the strengthening of existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make use of systematic and structured learning processes. These groups take control over local decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or practices.
Self- mobilisation
People participate by taking initiatives independent of external institutions to change systems. Such self initiated mobilisation and collective action may or may not challenge existing inequitable distributions of wealth and power.
These types of participation can be viewed along a spectrum (see Figure 5.1), with passive participation (where people are told what to do) at one end, and self-mobilisation (where people are in total control) at the other end of the spectrum. As one moves from passive participation towards self-mobilisation the degree to which local people and outsiders control the process changes. At the passive participation end of the spectrum people have minimal control over the process while outsiders have almost total control. At the self-mobilisation end of the spectrum however, the roles are reversed and local people have almost total control whilst outsiders play a minimal role in processes (Kumar, 2002).
Figure 5.1. Spectrum of participation (from Kumar, 2002:25).
The transformative type of participation in White’s (1996) typology and the self-mobilisation end of Pretty’s (1995) typology of participation are more in line with strong co-management or deliberative democracy (Dryzek, 1996; Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003). When using the term participation, therefore, there is a need to qualify the type of participation that is being employed.
Adopting a participatory approach in development is believed to be more than a fashionable option. According to Oakley et al. (1991, in Kumar, 2002) participation is advantageous to development processes in four respects. Firstly, because it is able to “ensure effective utilisation of available resources” (Oakley et al.1991, in Kumar, 2002:27). When the people work with other agents in achieving development objectives they take responsibility for certain aspects. In sharing the load, expenditure on ‘professional’ staff is reduced. In addition, capacity is built amongst local people to engage in development processes, which reduces human resource costs in the future.
A second advantage of participation is that by increasing the active involvement of local people, their dependence on outsiders to resolve problems is reduced because they learn to resolve problems at their own level (Oakley et al. 1991, in Kumar, 2002). Participation increases self-reliance, self-confidence and ultimately the ability to effectively control the development process.
1 Passive Participation
2 Participation in
information- giving
3 Participation by consultation
4 Participation for
material incentives
5 Functional participation
6 Interactive participation
7 Self- mobilisation
Outsiders’ control Local people's control
A third advantage of participation is that it increases the opportunity for development initiatives to benefit their target groups, which are often the weaker sections of society, as opposed to being tapped by the elite, the non-poor, and the powerful (Oakley et al.1991, in Kumar, 2002). This is due to increased transparency, an increased opportunity for a wide range of participants to be involved, and also to the cost-effectiveness of participation enabling more resources to be made available for a wider coverage of the target group.
The fourth advantage of participation is the increased sustainability of development interventions (Oakley et al.1991, in Kumar, 2002). Development interventions are generally funded by external agents and it is often the case that these projects struggle to sustain the necessary development activity once support or inputs are reduced or removed. An increased involvement of people through participatory processes encourages the continuity of the activities because it creates a sense of ownership over the project which should sustain the level of activity after the external agents have withdrawn their involvement in the project.
Despite these advantages, there are however limitations to involving people in development initiatives by applying a participatory model. Oakley et al. (1991, in Kumar, 2002) have identified four of the main disadvantages of people’s participation. Firstly, participation may slow down the start and the progress made in the initial stages of fieldwork, which would then delay the achievement of physical and financial objectives. Secondly, participation may necessitate increased expenditure on material and financial resources because the direction taken by local people in a participatory process may not be the most cost nor time efficient method of implementing an initiative. In a similar vein, a third disadvantage of a participatory process is that once the process is underway, it has to follow its own route and may not progress in a manner previously anticipated. A participatory process should ideally empower local people in decision-making, thereby increasing their control over the process, whilst the role of external agents should ideally diminish (Kumar, 2002). For these external agents to relinquish control and allow the process to unfold is a difficult business. The fourth disadvantage that Kumar (2002) discusses concerns the issue of raised expectations. It is believed that strong or interactive participation (the self-mobilisation end of the spectrum) tends to generate raised expectations about what a project will deliver, however, owing to the involvement of the local people these increased expectations may not be realised (Oakley et al.1991, in Kumar, 2002). According to Kumar (2002:28), local people are often only involved
in projects at the implementation stage because implementing agents seek to avoid these limitations becoming a reality in development, and this is believed to be the reason why
“participation remains rhetoric rather than a reality”.
In addition to these four limitations, a variety of other factors can also potentially affect the success of a participatory programme. These factors include: trust between stakeholders;
definition of the resource; security of tenure; degree of organisation and cohesiveness of community management bodies; fulfilment of needs; and locally acceptable returns on investment in the collaborative process (Hobley 1996; Murphree 1993 and Campbell et al., 2001; Grundy and Michell, 2004; and von Maltitz and Shackleton, 2004). In addition, the success of a participatory management programme such as PFM depends on the following three factors, namely (Grundy and Michell, 2004:686):
a. Power and the ability to control use of resources b. The social cost involved in resource conservation
c. The value (both direct and indirect) of the resource to users.
Because these factors vary across different regions, it is suggested that it is unwise to apply a blanket participatory method across the country. Rather, it is advisable to assess each individual situation and develop a plan of action with the local people that is appropriate to their social and economic circumstances and which addresses the local environmental context.
Carter (1996) maintains that the success of any participatory forestry approach depends largely on its ability to be flexible to local situations.