AFRICANUS Vol 30 No 2 ISSN 0304-615X - University of South Africa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

stakeholders. These coalitions were built behind the scenes, through lobbying by influential individuals (Biggs & Smith 1998:246). Unfortunately, they do not discuss the problem of patronage. According to them the crucial factor in the success of these methodologies is not the kind of participation by beneficiaries, but rather the ``social and political context of the methods' application'' (1998:241). In this case, what participation can or cannot accomplish would depend on the political economy of development aid. From this discussion it is clear that participatory research, and by implication development interventions in which participation is strategically structured, will not necessarily lead to the kind of development that is devoted to the interests of the participants. Participation in a development project could serve interests other than those of the beneficiaries. I would suggest that we should consider the kind of participation by beneficiaries as much as the kind of development project itself. In order to do this, we have to analyse the contemporary political economy, for example, the type of macroeconomic policy choices made, interest groups relevant to the project, and their impact on activity at local level. This ambivalence is highlighted by Selener (1997:203±204), when he distinguishes between technical and political forms of participatory research. Participation as a technical intervention is: [a] tactic for involving people in practical activities in the process of problem definition, data collection, data analysis and implementation of results ... Participation of a technical nature can be manipulated by power holders to fulfil their own needs and thus may not promote empowerment or social change (Selener 1997:203±204). Selener continues: Participation of a political nature means acquiring power and taking greater control of a situation by increasing options for action, autonomy and reflection, especially through the development and strengthening of institutions (1997:204; his emphasis). Participation, in an ideal sense, is a political strategy that promotes the interests of participants in development over those who implement projects. The political nature of participation, however, could also serve as a veil behind which power could be consolidated and used more effectively (Rahnema 1993). When we postulate the social context as instrumental to whether participatory research leads to participatory development and (possibly) positive social 68
change, the problems underlying development change fundamentally. It forces us to see the social element as determining the direction of development, and not development as the motive force behind social change. In many ways this is a classic debate. It is ideological to suppose that only development and development projects would change our social reality. The development project may all too easily become subservient to the powers that be, or development may follow contemporary fashions, of which ``participation'' is the most prominent example. The conflation of participatory development and participatory research is a variation on this fallacy. Participation was suggested as a solution to development problems decades ago (cf Lele 1975:62±78), but has only recently been examined more rigorously (Mannikutti 1997; Uphof et al 1990). The paradigm is badly in need of critical scrutiny. Clearly, the use of participatory research does not guarantee social change associated with the ``development and strengthening of institutions'' (Selener 1997:204). The strength of participatory research lies in its ability to engineer an intervention that suits local circumstances. This ability could, however, depreciate the necessity of deeper social change. Social change needs to be premised upon local circumstances. This is not only a moral, but also an economic imperative as any area has some form of comparative advantage over others. However, this same point of entry that legitimises participation can also make such research susceptible to local influences that are less benign and sometimes destructive (cf Mayoux 1995; Mosse 1994). An appreciation of local elements as a foundation for development is needed, but also an understanding that this local nature of development is embedded in a wider context, and that this wider context could undo any local gains. In order to apply this to participatory development, we will examine the institutional, the methodological and the social dimensions of development in South Africa. THE MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS OF PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT The previous discussion implies that participatory research and development must be combined with other aspects of intervention to lead to positive social change. Creating the right institutional environment is one aspect of this (Martin & Sherington 1997; Bunders & Broerse 1991). The policy choices any organisation or government makes are crucial in this regard. South Africa, and the South in general, are at present caught in a hegemony of neoliberal policy. Consequently, the scope for participation in policy formulation in South Africa 69
Page 1 and 2:
AFRICANUS Vol 30 No 2 ISSN 0304-615
Page 3:
Journal of Development Administrati
Page 6 and 7:
Book Reviews Can the poor influence
Page 8 and 9:
peared internationally. The purpose
Page 10 and 11:
Informal collection: a matter of su
Page 12 and 13:
Thus, despite the Government's Reco
Page 14 and 15:
age (table 1). The youngest collect
Page 16 and 17:
Collectors estimated that they earn
Page 18 and 19:
their head. Three women sold their
Page 20 and 21: Figure 3 Number of collectors recov
Page 22 and 23: would facilitate their work. Collec
Page 24 and 25: Figure 5 The effect of a recent car
Page 26 and 27: will have to be reviewed and the ag
Page 28 and 29: Huntley, B, Siegried, R & Sunter, C
Page 30 and 31: 1993 ± as did the 1993 and 1996 co
Page 32 and 33: local government are better placed
Page 34 and 35: 4 INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS FOR THE STR
Page 36 and 37: perienced to this form of establish
Page 38 and 39: ernment, the departmental approach
Page 40 and 41: Indicators for indigenous financial
Page 42 and 43: dividing them into three interrelat
Page 44 and 45: access to credit on a group liabili
Page 46 and 47: is no exception. Since the research
Page 48 and 49: development and the implementation
Page 50 and 51: Prospects for the sustainability of
Page 52 and 53: Gender relations: a missing link in
Page 54 and 55: groups? The underlying situation, a
Page 56 and 57: During this period, women and gende
Page 58 and 59: growth. WID started from the basic
Page 60 and 61: ather than beneficiaries, and that
Page 62 and 63: questioning the advisability and de
Page 64 and 65: gender differences are overlooked i
Page 66 and 67: On the relationship between partici
Page 68 and 69: participatory development and resea
Page 72 and 73: seems limited at present, especiall
Page 74 and 75: pared to the rest of the world (Har
Page 76 and 77: to attaining empowerment are still
Page 78 and 79: Revenue and ownership Ð the impact
Page 80 and 81: outcome in a developing economy wit
Page 82 and 83: 3 A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE SOUTH AFR
Page 84 and 85: increase in investment in education
Page 86 and 87: 4.2 Private investor returns and pu
Page 88 and 89: Yet for government revenue reasons
Page 90 and 91: lishing a mechanism for a reasonabl
Page 92 and 93: internationally and increase the pr
Page 94 and 95: ulation. The drawback is that firms
Page 96 and 97: would also increase. In South Afric
Page 98 and 99: Book reviews Can the poor influence
Page 100 and 101: PPAs could have been elaborated on
Page 102 and 103: lescence of new perspectives in Fer
Page 105: CHECKLIST FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO AFRI
show all

AFRICANUS Vol 30 No 2 ISSN 0304-615X - University of South Africa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?