4 Theoretical Framework for CBA
4.2 Key Concepts
4.2.1 Development-Related
The primary concepts that stem from development theory and are relevant for CBA include: social capital, participation and empowerment, and governance and civil society, which subsume concepts of institutional capacity and multi-level governance.
Social Capital
Social capital refers to the ‘socio-cultural glue’ that holds communities together (Mohan & Stokke, 2000) and therefore has a significant role in participatory and community-based development. According to American political scientist Robert Putnam in 1995 social capital is “features of social life – networks, norms and trust – that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives”
(Pelling & High, 2005, p. 310). The concept became popularised in the early 1990s by Putnam even though it can be traced back as early as the nineteenth century and to discourses around social connectedness (that is, networks) and cohesion (Hibbet, Jones, & Meegan, 2001; Mohan & Stokke, 2000). Nevertheless, the originators of social capital – in other words those who sought to define it – are identified as three men: Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman and Robert Putnam. In 1984 Bourdieu conceptualised social capital as part of social stratification theory and thus as an element that people consciously maintain. Six years later in 1990 Coleman conceptualised social capital as an unintentional outcome of social process, and in 1993 Putnam used social capital to explain the differences in economic development, performance and governance. (Pelling & High, 2005)
Social capital under Putnam’s definition fits within the revised neo-liberal view that the state has a positive role to play in development, and also that development is a social process with cultural underpinnings that must be acknowledged and understood (Mohan & Stokke, 2000). According to Lizzeralde, Johnson and Davidson (2010) social capital re-conceptualises what resources a community has available because it is tied to the notion of culture as a utilisable resource. Therefore it refers to
non-economical resources and networks (both formal and informal), which stem from relations of reciprocity based on mutual trust, shared norms and a common sense of belonging, that facilitate cooperation and exchange between members of a given social group. This perspective of social capital leads to the emphasis on partnerships and the multi-stakeholder approach in development and planning programmes today, motivated by the belief that if trust between groups can be built it will provide an avenue for knowledge and understanding to be shared and thus contribute towards effective and sustainable development. (Mohan & Stokke, 2000) This perspective also suggests that social capital is a public good and by-product of other activities.
As a result, social capital can be created and nurtured or it can be destroyed; it also can increase when it is used and decrease when it is not used (Hibbet et al., 2001, p.
144).
Three types of ‘ties’ have been identified to represent the interpersonal relationships that constitute social capital; these are bonding, bridging and linking or bracing ties (Pelling & High, 2005). See Figure 7 for an illustration of these. Putnam identified the first two in 2000 (Rydin & Holman, 2004). Bonding ties reflect relationships and trust between individuals who share a common social identity and therefore link people within a community or group. Bridging ties, in contrast, build links between distinct groups or communities. (Rydin & Holman, 2004; Wolf, Adger, Lorenzoni, Abrahamson, & Raine, 2010) The third type of relationships in social capital include linking or bracing ties, which provide the “networks of trust across authority gradients”, for example through policy support (Rydin & Holman, 2004; Wolf et al., 2010, p. 44). Out of these three types of ties bonding ties are used most, especially in participatory development because they work well in communities that have a strong place-based identity. However, critics warn that bonding ties can “ignore the potential ‘dark side’ of social capital” – for example, oppressing the views of certain community members, resisting links with others, and inhibiting change (Rydin &
Holman, 2004, p. 119). Therefore, they purport that the focus should actually be on bridging ties, which have more potential to accrue benefits because bridging connects unlike groups, such as donors, government agencies and local communities through the mediation of NGOs, to support development programmes and therefore increases the likelihood of positive and effective change. Bridging ties are often built during community development. Finally, it is important to note that within these types of ties there are both horizontal and vertical connections between individuals and groups (see Pretty and Ward, 200147). (Rydin & Holman, 2004, pp. 119-122)
Figure 7. Three types of ties in social capital Source: Pelling and High (2005)
To look at social capital in the context of the poor, it has been assumed that poorer groups have strong social networks and social capital, and therefore are favourable sites for participatory and community development (Docherty et al., 2001). However, Putnam warns against this “gauzy self-deception” and highlights that community-driven projects are not the ‘easy way out’;; in reality poor communities may have less trust for local community groups and political institutions (Martin & Mathema, 2010). To highlight this Martin and Mathema (2010) caution that residents of informal settlements have the same potential for division as other groups; they may not want to bring attention to themselves through development practices as they fear it will expose their illegal status; their poverty may have led to individualism rather
47 Pretty, J. and Ward, H. (2001) ‘Social capital and the environment’, World Development, 29, pp. 209–227.
than collectivism; and the temporary nature of many illegal tenants may mean they have no long-term investment in the area to warrant community activism.
Nevertheless this does not negate community-driven work; the poor still deserve the chance to participate in decision-making processes that affect their future; and often they do have social capital (that is, networks of interdependency) that can be reinforced and strengthened with the help of NGOs to produce effective community development initiatives. This social capital commonly results from hardship and economic stress, as well as external threats, such as demolition of their housing, that bring community members together and create mutual dependency, trust and a common reality. (Ibid.)
An understanding of the concept of social capital is important here because it underpins much of CBA theory and practice. In short, CBA builds upon the understanding and belief that social capital exists in communities; that it can be a potentially useful resource to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of adaptation initiatives among the poor in relation to climate change; and that it can be built and strengthened through bonding, bridging and bracing/linking ties, that create partnerships between poor communities and government and private actors often facilitated by NGOs.
Participation and Empowerment
A second development-related concept that is key to CBA is participation.
Participation is a fundamental concept and a widely accepted tool within the international sustainable development agenda both as a “democratic right” and a means to focus on the effectiveness of policy delivery and “assist in producing a
‘better’ policy outcome” (Rydin & Pennington, 2000, pp. 154-155). It is also viewed as a means of building social capital (Lonsdale, 2007). In short, participation means that people get to participate, take part or share in the decision-making and planning processes concerning their own development. As Few and others confirm: “for most
social analysts, a meaningful interpretation of the term participation must imply a degree of active involvement in taking decisions” (Few, Brown, & Tompkins, 2006, p. 4). Indeed, in 1969 Sherry Arnstein “argued that ‘participation without redistribution of power is an empty and frustrating process for the powerless’” (Ibid., p. 5). Furthermore, Chambers in 1994 asserted that instead of being a method, participation is a means of empowerment and mobilization to “enable people to present, share, analyse and augment their knowledge as the start of a process.
[Meanwhile] the ultimate output is enhanced knowledge and competence, and ability to make demands, and to sustain action” (Quoted in Williams, 2004, p. 559). This emphasis on redistribution of power or ‘empowerment’ as part of participation has made local areas and civil society the focal sites for empowerment and the locus of knowledge and development intervention (Mohan & Stokke, 2000). It thus challenges centralization and advocates for local governance to break the power of central ministries in order to shift “the burden on service delivery onto local stakeholders”
(Ibid., p. 250).
If we are to trace the evolution of participation, we notice that it began “as a means for social, cultural and political emancipation and for giving a role to ‘local knowledge’” in community development (Sliwinski, 2010, p. 178). Thus it has its roots in development theories, policies and practices that respond to ‘top-down’
development approaches, and has evolved under the influence of Robert Chambers and his colleagues’ work on RRA and PRA techniques in the 1970s and Chambers’
significant book ‘Rural Development: Putting the Last First’ published in 1983 (Ibid.). Between the 1950s and 1980s participation was mainly practiced and advocated in the margins among the NGO community, however in the early 1990s a major shift launched it into the mainstream to become “part of official aims and objectives of governments and international development agencies” as a means to achieve sustainable development (Martin & Mathema, 2010; Williams, 2004, p. 557).
Williams asserts that this shift is prominent in the ‘World Development Report 2000/1: Attacking Poverty” published by the World Bank in 2001, which resulted in participation becoming the “new buzz-word” and low- and middle-income nations being “forced to follow suit” (Williams, 2004, pp. 557-558). Under participatory development, community participation became an official development policy to empower poor and marginal communities (Sliwinski, 2010). And in town planning, the concept of participation became a popular government response to a crisis of citizen’s confidence regarding the ability of the State and the Market to create socially and economically successful cities (Docherty et al., 2001). Overall this reflects the growing perception that the State is a barrier rather than the driving force behind development; it also reflects a neo-liberal development strategy that emphasises institutional reforms and social development instead of a singular focus on market deregulation to bring about development (Mohan & Stokke, 2000). As such participation – through building social capital – can act as a transformative force by contributing towards citizen building and building local governance capacities48.
The earliest typology of participation goes back to Sherry Arnstein’s famous ‘Ladder of Participation’, shown in Figure 8. She uses the image of an eight-rung ladder to illustrate that participation can be interpreted and practiced across a wide spectrum and can represent very contrasting levels of citizen power in the decision-making process. As such at the bottom of the ladder is manipulation and therapy, which Arnstein says are in fact ‘nonparticipation’! Then there are informing, consultation, and placation in the middle of the ladder, which Arnstein calls ‘tokenism’. Finally the top rungs of the ladder are partnership, delegated power, and citizen power.
These portray what was said earlier – that true participation is expected to include empowerment of people and communities.
48 See Hickey, S. and G. Mohan (eds) (2004), Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation, London: Zed Books.
Figure 8. Ladder of Participation
Source: Arnstein (1969)49 illustrated in Martin and Mathema (2010, p. 131)
Following the work of Arnstein, which is based on experience in the United States during the 1960s, similar typologies have followed (Martin & Mathema, 2010). One of particular notice is by Jules Pretty who in 1995 published a seven-point typology of participation in the context of development programmes and projects (see Figure 9). A comparison of the two ladders separated by almost twenty-five years of practice illustrates that the same types of participation persist. In the bottom rungs of Pretty’s ladder are manipulative and passive participation, which are similar to Arnstein’s ‘nonparticipation’. In the middle rungs of the ladder are participation by consultation or for material incentives and functional participation that reflect Arnstein’s ‘tokenism’, and finally in the top rungs of the ladder are interactive participation and self-mobilization equivalent to Arnstein’s ‘citizen power’.
49 The original source of the Ladder of Participation may be found in Arnstein, S. R. (1969), “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35 (4), pp.216-224.
Figure 9. Typology of participation: how people participate in development programmes and projects Source: Pretty (1995, p. 1252)
These ladders and typologies show that there are a number of different types of participation, but more importantly they illustrate that not all types of participation equate with the ethos of participation (i.e. the bottom rungs of the ladders). Indeed the types that most reflect the aim of participation are found in the top couple of rungs of the ladders; these are citizen power and self-mobilization followed by delegated power and interactive participation. As such participation is, as mentioned above, significantly embedded in power relations and in order to create strong or good participatory development it is fundamental to identify the power relations between and within stakeholder groups if a redistribution of power to empower the poor or powerless is to occur. Lonsdale (2007) highlights that this power can be expressed differently: it may be hidden (e.g., social exclusion), visible (e.g. through power structures) or invisible (e.g. through the control of information). Furthermore stakeholders can exercise their power for good or bad to be ‘movers’ (+ve) or saboteurs (-ve), and therefore may be adversarial or mutualistic and empowering, respectively (Ibid.).
In addition to the identification of stronger and weaker (or even contrary) forms of participation related to the extent they empower the powerless, a gamut of obstacles and criticism surround participatory policy and practice. Obstacles that participation
face include: omitting to set realistic and possible outcomes before engaging with communities, which can result in disappointment if plans exceed what is possible;
selecting a poor facilitator, which can hinder communication between stakeholders;
excluding key groups from discussions because of meeting times, etc.; giving lip-service without genuinely seeking to resolve the felt-needs of communities; and taking a long time to deliver results – which can lead to participation fatigue when there is a lack of action following discussions (Lonsdale, 2007). An analysis of post-disaster housing development also reveals that constraints on participation occur when people exaggerate their housing needs and expectations; when they are not fully aware of the long-term consequences of some of their immediate housing desires; and finally, when people cannot compute all the possible alternatives (and their consequences) as part of a post-disaster context. In sum, what people would like for new housing turns out to be quite different from what they can maintain and afford.
In this case the input of external expertise is valuable. (Lizzeralde et al., 2010, pp. 27-28)
Criticisms aimed at participation include that it can underplay local inequalities and power relations, for example related to gender differences, by grouping people into
“communities”50 (Mohan & Stokke, 2000). Furthermore, communities themselves can neglect minority opinions by reverting to “group thinking” and their social norms (Dalal-Clayton & Bass, 2002, p. 123). Participation can also underplay national and transnational economic and political forces, and as such there is a strong criticism that participation de-politicises development problems and can emphasise personal reform instead of political struggle (Mohan & Stokke, 2000; Williams, 2004). Inspired by Foucault, authors Cooke and Kothari (Cooke & Kothari, 2001) therefore question “Is participation the new tyranny?”. In other words they purport that participation reveals an exercise of power, on behalf of the development agencies or organisations
50 See Guijat, I. and M. K. Shah (eds) (1998), The Myth of Community: The gender issues in participatory development, London: Intermediate Technology.
that often initiate participatory interventions, over the community to be developed or rebuilt (Lizzeralde et al., 2010). Finally, it is argued that participation encourages people to take part in the modern sector meanwhile it does not allow them to criticise the actual process of development itself (Williams, 2004).
Despite its obstacles and criticisms, participation plays a central role in development and now CBA theory and practice. Not least for participation’s transformative potential to build social capital, to improve knowledge and share learning about climate change, and specifically to build adaptive capacity towards current and future climate risks that should increase a likelihood of successful adaptation strategies (Lafferty, 2004). According to Tanner, Mitchell, Polack and Guenther (2008) a study of ten Asian countries identified ‘participation and inclusion’ as one of five important characteristics that help to reduce vulnerability of citizens most at risk from climate shocks and stresses, and will assist climate change adaptation planning programmes in future. Participation is already enshrined in Article 6 of the 1992 UNFCCC, which calls for Parties to promote and facilitate public participation in addressing climate change, its effects and in development of adequate responses (Few, Brown, et al., 2006). Additionally, active participation is listed in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report in 2001 as one of the conditions for enhancing adaptive capacity “to ensure that actions match local needs and resources”, and in 2003 IISD stated a need to
“ensure the effective participation and empowerment of poor communities in key adaptation decisions” (Ibid., p. 3).
Governance and Civil Society
The third relevant development-related concept is governance. Governance refers to processes through which collective affairs are managed and thus articulates rules and principles and legitimises initiatives taken on behalf of a political community, which is part of a collective entity (Healey, 2006a). In modern society governance refers to
“what governments do”, in other words “the machinery of the state”, however this is
shifting to encompass a more diverse multitude of non-state actors and relations (Ibid., p. 206). As such there is a widening focus from governments (narrow) to a governance that “is not the sole preserve of governments” (broad) (Healey, 2006a, p.
210; 2010). This shift is largely accountable to neoliberal politics that seeks to reduce the role of the state and to promote partnerships and empowerment of the economy and civil society (Healey, 2006a, 2007, 2010). As such the role of the state is being challenged to move from being a provider to being a strategic enabler, and concomitantly civil society is being asked to create their own governance institutions in order to manage collective affairs (Healey, 2006a).
There are different forms of governance and four popular forms found in the Western governance systems include: representative democracy, pluralist democracy, corporatism, and clientalism (Healey, 2006a). Although these have been linked with the West, these forms of governance prevail worldwide; in particular clientalism is often prevalent in many low-income nations whereby politicians become “critical gate keepers in directing the flow of resources and patrons to a band of clients”
(Healey, 2006a, p. 228). Other forms of governance that relate to this research include place governance, street-level governance, inclusive or participatory governance, and network governance (Healey, 2006b, 2010; Keskitalo, 2010; Riley &
Wakely, 2005). Place governance refers to governance that is contextualised in a spatial place and encompasses stakeholders from different levels, sectors and spheres in relation to a place-specific problem or issue. Place governance is often the domain of planning. Street-level governance is similar to place governance – and may be considered a form of it – however what sets it apart is that it specifically looks at the local and household level or the “fine-grain management of small-scale changes to local environments” (Healey, 2006a, p. 100). Community development is often considered to fall into this category. Participatory governance emphasises the inclusion and engagement of people in the governance process and is often expressed
through inclusive governance and partnerships that rely on participation (Keskitalo, 2010; Riley & Wakely, 2005). Finally network governance refers to governance that makes use of existing networks and purposefully builds or strengthens linkages between them to help manage collective affairs.
According to Kokx and van Kempen (2010, p. 358) there are five principles of good governance that are essential for citizen involvement and empowerment as well as policy integration between various government levels. They include: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence. These principles relate to two forms of governance, firstly a networked mode (principles one to three) and secondly, a neo-liberal ‘new’ managerialism mode (principles four and five) (Ibid.).
Dodman and Satterthwaite (2008) add to this list characteristics of good governance that include: decentralisation and autonomy, transparency and accountability, and
Dodman and Satterthwaite (2008) add to this list characteristics of good governance that include: decentralisation and autonomy, transparency and accountability, and