The spread of participatory development worldwide has multiplied opportunities for local population to engage in paid and unpaid development activities. However, scholars have pointed out that participatory approaches bear the risk of strengthening unequal social structures, despite their emphasis on democratisation and inclusion. This paper investigates the case of a Swiss-funded infrastructural project in rural Nepal, analysing the role of participatory spaces in the dynamics of development resource capture. The empirical material collected suggests that, although participatory development has created more opportunities for social mobility, these opportunities are not necessarily open to everyone. In the case studied, the transformational potential of participation is only partially fulfilled.
Participatory approaches in the implementation of development projects have become mainstream in the last 30 years. As a consequence, opportunities for local people to engage in development activities have increased exponentially worldwide. The newly created spaces for participation are considered to bear potential for empowerment and social mobility (Cornwall and Coelho, 2007a). However, scholars are cautious in praising participatory approaches, because, on the one hand, resources mobilised by participatory spaces are exposed to “elite capture” (Olivier de Sardan, 2005:166–184), which strengthens elites instead of empowering marginalised people (see Cook and Kothari, 2001). On the other, the implementation of participation is often reduced to a mere technical issue, downplaying its political meanings (see Korf, 2010).
In this paper I analyse a Swiss-funded development project in two villages of southern and central Nepal, in order to investigate the implications of expanding participatory spaces on the process of resource capture, especially for the marginalised population. In particular, I focus on unpaid engagement in development activities as a specific form of participation, and I will argue how this engagement can be used as a strategy to access resources and contribute to social mobility. My study indicates that binary social categorisations are reproduced within participatory spaces: this has an influence on both local power relations and the possibilities of social mobility through participation. The empirical material suggests that, although recent approaches to development have created more opportunities for social mobility, these opportunities are not necessarily open to everyone; therefore, it also points out that the transformational potential of participation is only partially fulfilled in the case studied.
The first part of the paper presents its analytical framework focusing on the concepts of development capture and brokerage, engaging the academic debate on participation; then it introduces the specific discussions on local development in Nepal. The following sections illustrate in detail the case study by means of three examples of participatory spaces, dwelling in particular on social categorisations. In conclusion, the paper proposes a discussion on the potential of participation for social mobility in the studied communities.
The complex set of institutions, actors, flows and practices linked to
development – the “development apparatus” (Pigg, 1992) – offers a wide
spectrum of resources ranging from material (e.g. salaries of
development workers or infrastructural outputs of a project) to political
and symbolic ones (e.g. prestige and authority). This framework
draws on Bourdieu's conceptualisation of capital, e.g. see Bebbington, 2004,
2007; see also the special issue of Geographica Helvetica (Korf et al.,
2014). I am thankful to Christine Bichsel for this
observation.
The development apparatus thus creates spaces of negotiation in which the “development rent” (Olivier de Sardan, 2005:173–174), in terms of money and privileges acquired through brokerage activities, is the real issue at stake, rather than the project outcome. The expansion of the apparatus implies the multiplication of actors competing for its resources: governments, international agencies, national and local non-governmental organisations (NGOs), groups of interest, individuals, all of which can, in different settings, be considered as brokers. As Pigg notes, “[f]rom the local people's perspective, the tangible advantages of [development] lie less in receiving the benefits of its programs (though no one minds if an agency decides to bring them piped water, build a clinic, or install electricity) than in becoming one of the salaried workers who implements [development]” (1992:511). Because of their attractive remuneration and the image of prestige bounded to them, job positions related to development programmes are thus particularly coveted by the locals at all levels (Olivier de Sardan, 2005:137–152; for Nepal Pigg, 1996; Shakya, 2008; Heaton Shrestha, 2010).
Participatory approaches have developed in response to a growing critique (especially post-development and post-colonial: see the recent accounts of respectively Ziai, 2012 and Lossau, 2012) of the traditional development intervention. The promise of these approaches was to democratise development and fulfil its potential for social transformation (e.g. Chambers, 1994). The spread of participatory development practices, in Nepal likewise elsewhere, has indeed multiplied the opportunities to engage in unpaid development activities at a community level as well as the number and frequency of spaces where people can (or must) participate. This kind of engagement does not bring immediate material benefits as it would for salaried workers; yet, through volunteer engagement, people can access non-material resources, such as strategic contacts, prestige and authority (see Olivier de Sardan, 2005:167–184; Long, 2001; Bierschenk et al., 2002; for Nepal see among others Heaton Shrestha, 2002 and Nightingale, 2006).
However, scholars have pointed out that generally these resources are likely to be exploited by privileged people (elite capture), for which capturing development benefits becomes even easier with the multiplication of participation opportunities (see Olivier de Sardan, 2005:166–184). A consequence of failing to consider power relations is that efforts for an inclusive development through participation can strengthen local elites instead of empowering marginalised groups (Cook and Kothari, 2001; Gaventa, 2006; Cornwall and Coelho, 2007b; for Nepal Rauch, 1998). Authors speak of the “tyranny” of participation (Cook and Kothari, 2001; see also Korf, 2010:711–712), denouncing that decision-making processes, despite their claim of being participative, are mostly led by elites and are determined by group dynamics shaped by power imbalances. For instance, participatory activities require a considerable amount of time, which is not available to everybody, especially to women (the “tyranny of time”, e.g. Walker, 2013; see also Byrne and Shrestha, 2014:447). Moreover, post-political critique has underlined that the integration of participatory practices into the mainstream and the imposition of ready-made participatory tools have transformed participation, and development in general, into a technical exercise that tends to blind its political implications (Mouffe, 2005; see Korf, 2010; also Wilson and Swyngedouw, 2014).
Indeed, it can be argued that participation efforts in some cases paradoxically strengthen existing inequalities. Recent claims call for a more transparent consideration of power relations as well as the political meanings of the development process within the conception and implementation of participatory practices (see, e.g. Hickey and Mohan, 2004; Gaventa, 2006; Cornwall and Coelho, 2007a). Yet, it has still to be assessed to what extent a plain attention to the problems raised by scholars can allow participation to accomplish its promises of transformation. In this paper, I aim at contributing to this debate with empirical material from rural Nepal, focusing on the engagement of villagers in participatory spaces and its consequences on possibilities of social mobility. Before that, however, it is necessary to outline specific debates related to development in Nepal.
The spread of development and modernisation ideas in Nepal since the 1950s
has drastically impacted the local collective imagination as well as the
definition of social categories (Burghart, 1984; Pigg, 1992; Shrestha, 1993;
see also Fujikura, 2001; Elmer, 2012). An evolutionary understanding of
society is implicit in the narrative of modernisation; as a result, social
aspiration consists in escaping the category of “underdeveloped” and
entering the one of “developed” (Pigg, 1996; see also the
“developmentalist ideology” described in Gellner, 2010:6–8). In a binary
logic of knowledge and ignorance, the ones who are “underdeveloped” are
“to be taught like children” about how to become “developed”
(Nightingale, 2005:589; see also Agrawal, 1995 and Geiser, 2002 for a
discussion of indigenous vs. scientific knowledge). This binary logic was
evident in development programmes along the 1950s and 1960s See
the analysis of the US-funded Village Development Project in Fujikura, 1996
and the discussion of the Tribhuvan Village Development Programme in Bista (1999) and Malla (2001).
In line with the global trend, participatory approaches have proliferated also in Nepal since the 1980s and especially in the 1990s (Müller-Böker, 2000; Shakya, 2008). One of the consequences of this was the “mushrooming” of local and national NGOs, community-based organisations (CBOs), and project-specific users groups (Shakya, 2008; Gellner, 2010; Heaton Shrestha, 2010). Claims for social inclusion and for the reduction of discrimination – especially ethnical one – have been a key point in the post-conflict political debate around a “New Nepal” (Panday, 2012; Upreti, 2014). Accordingly to these claims, donors and development actors in the country have put emphasis on the inclusion and participation of marginalised groups in the development process. Social mobilisation at the local level (Jha et al., 2009) and participation quotas for marginalised groups as positive discrimination (Contzen and Müller-Böker, 2014) are nowadays established tools in development programmes throughout the country (see Singh and Ingdal, 2007; GoN (Government of Nepal), 2009).
However, the achievements of Nepal's struggle for development are contested. Despite the rise of most (aggregated) development indicators in the last 6 decades (Adhikari, 2008), the idea that development has “failed” is widespread among Nepalese (see the discussion in Leve, 2009). Scholars have pointed out persisting social inequalities (Rankin, 2003; Gellner, 2007; Heaton Shrestha, 2010; Panday, 2012), suggesting that traditional structures of power (and exclusion) have been assimilated, and thereby reinforced, into the formal structures of development (Pfaff-Czarnecka, 2008; see also Bista, 1994; Nightingale and Ojha, 2013). Furthermore, although some researchers indicate the raise of people's “awareness” as a success of donors' efforts (e.g. Adhikari, 2008:14; Baral, 2008:252–253; Hachhethu, 2008:51), the very discourse of awareness reproduces the binary logic of knowledge and ignorance (see the discussion in Fujikura, 2001, 2013).
Research suggests that democratisation and development have provided new means for social mobility; development has indeed become a new variable of social differentiation, however complementing the existing ones rather than replacing them (Elmer, 2014:252; see Pigg, 1992; Ramirez, 2000; Pfaff-Czarnecka, 2008; Ollieuz, 2012). More people (though not everybody) can aspire to become a leader, provided they are able to adopt the discourse of development and to build a status as “developed” people (Ramirez, 2000; Ollieuz, 2011). As already noted, “it is better to deliver development than to be its target” (Pigg, 1996:173), since the position of “development deliverer” is linked with a specific social status.
With the spread of participatory development, the opportunities (and
competition) to become a person who “delivers development” have increased
and diversified, including both prestigious salaried jobs and volunteer
activities at the local level (see Shakya, 2008:273–274; Heaton Shrestha,
2010:192–196; see above). Such volunteer activities are part of the broader
concept of For a detailed analysis of the relation between social work and politics see
Ollieuz (2012:83–89).
In Nepal, the distribution of resources at the local level is traditionally
regulated on the basis of
My analysis draws on empirical material collected in two villages in central
and southern Nepal (Ranipur and Dubikot). The research
project was funded by HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation and supported by the
University of Zurich; I am grateful to both. Fieldwork took place from
February to April 2012. All person and place names are modified by the
author. For a discussion of the profile of
social workers in general, which matches my observations of committee
members, see Borgström, 1980; Caplan, 1985; Ollieuz, 2012:68–71; see
also the profile of development brokers in Bierschenk et al. (2002:21–24).
The user committee is usually formed during a public meeting before the
start of bridge construction work. Two quotations I report all
quotations from Ranipur and Dubikot as they have been translated from Nepali
into English by my field assistant.
The senior people, the learned people were selected for the user committee. (…) These people can work actively. They can go to
the VDC The abbreviation for Village Development Committee
(VDC) refers alternatively to the executive body at village level, to
village authorities as a whole, or to the village in general. The
administrative entity of VDC usually entails several smaller “villages”,
also called
People who have time and can give time are selected for the user committee. People who
have experience in working for projects with organisations. (…)
We select people who have some knowledge, who can give the information, who
can motivate other people. (villager, Dubikot)
Preferential characteristics for a committee member are thus: availability of time to invest in the project, experience in similar activities (social work, in general), organisational skills, mobilisation potential (linked to one's reputation in the community), network of contacts with people in strategic positions (e.g. local authorities or NGOs), negotiation skills, education and knowledge. An allusion to age is also made in the quotations, though it does not seem to play a central role in the rest of my observation. Instead, gender, which is indeed an important variable, is not mentioned.
The concepts of
It is important to note that not every actual committee member corresponds
to the sketched profile. In fact, many development agencies, including the
Swiss NGO of this study, implement some forms of positive discrimination,
for instance fixing quotas for “socially and economically disadvantaged”
groups (see Contzen and Müller-Böker, 2014). Marginalised people (in
terms of gender, caste, ethnic group, or wealth) had reserved places also in
the bridge committees in Ranipur and Dubikot. In both committees, however, a
small group of four to five members was more active than the rest and took
over most of the project activities, especially the relations with actors
outside the community. This is not new: the limitations of
participation in user groups and the problems linked to quotas are discussed,
e.g. in Agarwal, 2001, 2010; Varughese and Ostrom, 2001; Nightingale, 2003;
Masaki, 2010.
While, on the one hand, some skills are required to become an active member,
on the other hand engaging in the committee is an occasion to develop such
skills. Among the tasks of committee members is the management of the
relations with local authorities, the local NGO in charge of the project and
the Swiss NGO. These relations are various and include, for instance,
obtaining the promised budget, implementing the technicians' guidelines on
bridge building and organising public meetings. A committee member is indeed
an intermediary (or
The VDC and DDC The meanings of District Development
Committee (DDC) are the same as for the VDC, but at district level (see
footnote 8).
In this quotation, Madhan himself underlines the importance of his network of contacts: the whole project, in fact, could start thanks to his personal relations rather than through formal channels. It was due to a coincidence, he says – or rather the result of his relational work – that he could find out how to apply for the bridge.
The figure of Madhan exemplifies the role of development brokers and the ways in which engagement in participatory spaces, and in general in social work, can be used as a mean for social mobility. At the time of my fieldwork, Madhan, a young man of a discriminated caste, had started his “career” as social worker 7 years before, when he engaged in an internationally funded development project. Two years later he assumed a paid administrative position within the same project. Madhan recognised that thanks to these activities he could learn several technical, administrative and relational skills, as well as build a tight network of personal relationships with local authorities, local NGOs and international agencies. When I met him, he was engaged in several local associations and projects, in both paid and unpaid positions, had tight relations with political representatives and was considering starting an active political career. In his village, he was the person of reference, both for co-villagers (for instance in case of disputes) and for external actors (as I will show in the next section). Madhan was thus able to take advantage of the resources offered by development engagement to strengthen his position and authority in the village (see Bierschenk et al., 2002:19–28; Ollieuz, 2011). His election as chairperson of the bridge committee was at the same time an acknowledgement of his status and a new opportunity to strengthen that same status (see Byrne and Shrestha, 2014:445–446).
In his village, Madhan was the reference for all actors coming from outside
the community, including myself, and was the exclusive intermediary between
the project and the community. Although the space created by my research
project is not a participatory space in a narrow sense, I include it in my
analysis since it revealed to be an exemplification of brokerage relations.
Madhan was the
Madhan also acted as a
I observed precisely the same dynamics during several interviews: the
behaviour and answers of villagers were clearly different if Madhan was
present or not. People who usually spoke freely and spontaneously felt
suddenly silent as soon as Madhan was appearing. People who easily answered
our questions alone, would suddenly need Madhan's translation and
encouragement when he was present, and then answered with monosyllables.
Furthermore, the presence of Madhan increased the frequency of clichéd
sentences like, “we have the ownership”, “we are aware that we have to
work for the bridge”, “with the bridge the society will be developed”
(from different interviews with villagers, Ranipur). Madhan acted on the one
hand as a gatekeeper and translator towards us, on the other hand he operated as
a guide and a
In line with the general strategy to increase participation of local people in development activities, the Swiss NGO promotes a participatory tool consisting of three public meetings held in the timeframe of project implementation. The goal of these meetings is to provide a space for sharing project-related information, for discussion and participatory decision-making. In both Ranipur and Dubikot I was present to one such meeting, attended by the Swiss NGO, the local NGO, the user committee, villagers and a representative of local authorities. Such moments were highly symbolic, also in a spatial sense: people with particular positions (such as NGO employees, local authorities and of course myself) sat on plastic chairs or on straw mat, while the audience sat on the ground or stood.
These meetings are an occasion to perform specific roles, in particular to show one's own familiarity with the language of development and with the strategic actors who control development-related resources (see the “scenographic competence” in Bierschenk et al., 2002:22–23). In the first very ample part of both meetings, the staff of the NGOs, political representatives, local authorities and active user committee members held “metaspeeches”, which I define, drawing on Anderson (2009), as speeches focusing on the meeting itself, for instance on its functioning and meaning. Both meetings lasted several hours: in Dubikot, after 3 hours, only few of the numerous participants were still present. This means that the majority of participants only heard metaspeeches and missed the discussion on concrete project issues. It must be noted that our presence (especially of a representative of the Swiss NGO who accompanied me to the meetings) surely affected the length and content of such metaspeeches. I can suppose that people who held metaspeeches were also motivated by the desire to show their skills and competences to the guests coming from outside the community, performing thus their role as “developed persons”.
Metaspeeches were highly rhetorical and repeated the guidelines on public
meetings given by the foreign funder, which stress the importance of
accountability and participation. NGO employees and those in the community
who had learned the development language insisted in
The binary categorisation of who can teach and who should be taught depends on the definition of what kind (and whose) knowledge counts (see Nightingale, 2005; Olivier de Sardan, 2005:153–165; also Agrawal, 1995; Geiser, 2002). Pigg has noted that in Nepal this distinction is expressed through an idiom of “understanding” that creates a dichotomy between who “understands” and who “doesn't understand” (1992:507; Pigg, 1996:173–179). Some user committee members complained about their colleagues because “they are less educated, and therefore the more educated have to convince these people to work for the project” (user committee member, Dubikot). In a similar way, NGO workers lamented the scarce interest of participants to public meetings:
We focus also on how to increase the participation of local people. In my
experience I saw that people are happy that the bridge is ready. They don't
have enough level of awareness about what we are doing in that meeting.
(…) People are not much interested about the process. They just
sit there: “Bridge is made?” “Yes.” “Good, so we are happy!”. (NGO employee,
Dubikot)
This logic posits a causal link between the lack of education and the scarce engagement in development activities. In my observations, “understanding” seems to refer to the specific idea of participatory development promoted by international agencies, which confers substantial importance to the active involvement of the beneficiaries of projects. “Educated” people are those who understand the need to participate in development activities and of “giving their time for the community”, as expressed by several active villagers.
This logic, however, lacks consideration of other obstacles that might hamper people's participation: among others, as discussed above, time scarcity, missing experience in social work (with the ensuing lack of practical skills), lack of familiarity with development codes, feelings of inadequacy. Moreover, being categorised as “non-educated” can rise mechanisms of self-censorship, as it appears in a committee member's words in Ranipur, “We [women] don't have education. We forget everything, and nothing comes into our minds!”. The quotation suggests that the self-categorisation as non-educated can weaken self-esteem as well as the motivation to zealously engage in development activities. The use of unfamiliar technical terminology in meetings can frustrate participation too. As mentioned above, the predominance of metaspeeches in meetings, intended as explicative, can paradoxically result as an impediment to the real aim of the meeting.
I already advanced that engaging in development activities offers the
opportunity to acquire specific skills and knowledge and to extend one's own
network of strategic contacts; shortly, it allows to
In the present study I showed that unpaid engagement in development activities can pay well, even though it does not bring direct material benefits. In addition to the acquisition of skills and contacts, this kind of engagement helps building reputation, prestige, and eventually authority, in the community. This is possible through a subtle work of mediation between local community and international agencies. In a social context that distinguishes people who “understand” and people who “don't understand” (Pigg, 1992), participation to development activities can offer the means to enter the former category.
The multiplication of participatory spaces (and, in Nepal, of social work in
general) broadens the opportunities to access several kinds of resources.
Furthermore, the emphasis on inclusive development encourages specific
practices (social mobilisation at the community level and quotas for user
groups, among others) that disclose participatory spaces to a broader
population. This opens new prospects for social mobility to people, like
Madhan, that had no such possibilities in the traditional Nepalese hierarchy
(especially concerning caste, ethnicity and gender). This resonates
with recent ethnographic accounts, e.g. Ramirez, 2000; Ollieuz, 2012; Byrne
and Shrestha, 2014.
Nevertheless, my study suggests that these opportunities are not necessarily
open to everyone. Once people have entered participatory spaces, there might still
be barriers for their
Scholars have noted that development has become a new variable in the regulation of local power relations, underlining yet that it has not replaced the existing variables (e.g. Ramirez, 2000). In my investigation I have focused on only one kind of social categorisation (the one linked to development) and of social ties (the ones built through development engagement). I have thus offered an insight into one specific aspect of local “distributional coalitions” (Pfaff-Czarnecka, 2008, see above). Indeed, also other categorisations and ties play a role in defining social structures in Nepal, both traditional ones based for instance on caste and ethnicity and more recent ones linked especially to political activity. Development programmes in the countries need to consider all these variables, if they want to avoid the tyranny of participation and the reproduction of inequalities. Especially, they should avoid participation to become a mere technical exercise, where quotas are fulfilled only on paper and meetings are mostly a rhetorical performance.
The author is grateful to Benedikt Korf for his support during the research process and to Sarah Byrne, Christine Bichsel, Davide Fiocco and two anonymous referees for their valuable comments on precedent drafts of the paper. Edited by: B. Korf Reviewed by: two anonymous referees