Participatory development has emerged as a new paradigm in international relief and development, driven by the principles of “people-centered” practice. This shift in approach has been influenced by humanist movements in the natural and social sciences, as well as the emergence of post-modernism and chaos theory. The new paradigm emphasizes the importance of local decision-making and capacities, and recognizes that big outcomes can be born of small inputs.
Participation is defined as involvement by local populations in the creation, content, and conduct of a program or policy designed to change their lives. This approach requires recognition and use of local capacities, and avoids the imposition of priorities from the outside. Participatory development increases the odds that a program will be on target and its results will be sustainable. Ultimately, it is driven by a belief in the importance of entrusting citizens with the responsibility to shape their own future.
The meaning of participation is often context-specific, and various methodologies have been developed to enhance participation in humanitarian aid and development. These 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. Despite differences in definitions and methods, there is common agreement that authentic participation requires involvement by local populations in the creation, content, and conduct of a program or policy.
Participatory development is not politically neutral, as it promotes equity and accepts that the exercise of decision-making power at the local level is as legitimate as it is at the national level. It champions the sovereignty of people over the sovereignty of a state, and recognizes the significance of political and social context in determining the roots of an enduring problem. To believe in and promote participatory development is to believe in the intrinsic importance of self-determination.
Some organizations, such as the United States Agency for International Development’s Office of Transition Initiatives (USAID/OTI), openly advocate participatory methods precisely because they promote self-determination and predispose a people toward more democratic behavior. In Haiti and Kosovo, OTI implemented programs that made the means and ends of the program to develop a participatory ethic within populations unused to being asked what they thought.
Participatory development programming is not politically neutral, and to believe in and promote it is to believe in the intrinsic importance of self-determination. The truth is that humanitarian and development interventions, regardless of whether participatory methods are employed or not, are highly political. Local power relationships and the psychology of expectations are revised each time organizations determine their interlocutors and distribution systems.
Employing participatory methodologies has several benefits, including improved common sense about the political footprint of an intervention, lower overall costs, and greater relevance and effectiveness at addressing local needs. Participatory development programs are also more likely to sustain gains made during an intervention, and to improve the status of local women and youth. In addition, the ability of local participation programs to leverage other national or foreign resources extends the overall reach of general assistance in most cases.
Despite these advantages, dominant biases in conventional humanitarianism and development affairs still favor immediate results and rarely question whether an intervention should be avoided on ethical grounds. The index of care for a people in crisis is measured in how many millions they receive in aid, and efficiency and effectiveness are still commonly defined in the abstract. How assistance is rendered, whether it reaches legitimate beneficiaries, what is its political and social impact, and whether assistance contributes to stability or further misery are variables dropped from most assessment formulas.