Home Search Sitemap Contact Bookmark

Free Dissertations - Cultural Studies Dissertations

Chambers' Approach To Participatory Rural Appraisal Has, However, Been ...

Chambers' approach to participatory rural appraisal has, however, been criticised (see, for example, Kapoor 2002). Certainly the issue of top-down programming has been problematic in the African context. Indeed, Englebert (1997, 774) argues that ‘rural Africans have been plainly dispossessed, alienated from development. Pathologies such as atavism, lack of participatory attitudes and short-term thinking, when they exist, are therefore more a function of alienation than of culture.'
However, there are also various problems with making bottom-up approaches genuinely bottom-up. Nustad (2001, 483) argues that ‘the appropriation of a participatory vocabulary does not in itself constitute a transferral of power.' Often the use of participatory techniques just lends a veneer of participation and empowerment to what is essentially still a top-down approach. White (1996, 7) defines two ways in which participatory approaches are used in development programming. ‘The first is the question of who participates. This recognises that `the people' are not homogeneous, and that special mechanisms are needed to bring in relatively disadvantaged groups. The second regards the level of participation. This points out that the involvement of the local people in implementation is not enough. For a fully participatory project, they should also take part in management and decision-making.' Both of these aspects of participation may be important but they lend themselves to technical solutions and may obscure the politics of participation. ‘A quota for the inclusion of poor women on the executive board, for example, seems to provide the answer. But of course, simply being there does not ensure that those women have a real say; and, even if they do, there is no guarantee that they will speak for others in a similar situation. At their best, such measures can only facilitate fuller participation, they cannot deliver it.'
Cowen & Shenton (1996, 4) explain how the conflation of the means and ends of development may lead to superficial participation lending undue credibility to development programming. ‘Because development, whatever definition is used, appears as both means and goal, the goal is most often unwittingly assumed to be present at the onset of the process of development itself.' As a result, the goal may be pre-determined, and participation only taking place to help to determine the means. For participation to be meaningful, it is necessary to do more than consult a few of the proposed ‘beneficiaries'. Even if a good, representative sample existed and was properly consulted and their views taken into account, the fact remains that the agenda (i.e. the issues on which to consult) is often set by one person, or a small group of individuals, usually outsiders from the West.


Thanks