Participatory Development and Trust Building in Low-Trust Societies

1
011. Models of Participatory
011. Models of Participatory
Development
Development
in the Context of
in the Context of
Low Trust Society
Low Trust Society
A Comparative Study of
A Comparative Study of
Environmental Infrastructure
Environmental Infrastructure
Projects in Pakistan
Projects in Pakistan
2
Breaking the Vicious Circle of
Distrust and Underdevelopment
It is generally realized by development planners
It is generally realized by development planners
that in 
that in 
low trust society
low trust society
 the government-led
 the government-led
approaches of participatory development fail
approaches of participatory development fail
because  the beneficiary communities are not
because  the beneficiary communities are not
given their justified role in the process of planning
given their justified role in the process of planning
and decision making.
and decision making.
These inequalities and asymmetries devastate
These inequalities and asymmetries devastate
social trust and give rise to the accumulation of
social trust and give rise to the accumulation of
distrust between government agencies and
distrust between government agencies and
communities. As a result, the  vicious circle of
communities. As a result, the  vicious circle of
trust and development appears.
trust and development appears.
3
This vicious circle of distrust gets stronger due to
This vicious circle of distrust gets stronger due to
centralized bureaucratic system of government
centralized bureaucratic system of government
because central control of resource allocation
because central control of resource allocation
brutalizes social relations and gives rise to
brutalizes social relations and gives rise to
widespread corruption in the society.
widespread corruption in the society.
In government-led approaches of participatory
In government-led approaches of participatory
development, the government agencies retain the
development, the government agencies retain the
‘right to exit’ from the project in their hands while
‘right to exit’ from the project in their hands while
communities are expected to extend volunteer
communities are expected to extend volunteer
cooperation.
cooperation.
Particularly, when government agencies exit from
Particularly, when government agencies exit from
the project without completion by leaving
the project without completion by leaving
communities helpless and complainant, the vicious
communities helpless and complainant, the vicious
circle of trust and development is further
circle of trust and development is further
strengthened.
strengthened.
4
Cooperation needs trust and trust generates
Cooperation needs trust and trust generates
atmosphere for mutual cooperation. In order to
atmosphere for mutual cooperation. In order to
establish a trustworthy working relation between
establish a trustworthy working relation between
government agencies and the community, it is
government agencies and the community, it is
necessary to break this vicious circle.
necessary to break this vicious circle.
This vicious circle can be broken if communities 
This vicious circle can be broken if communities 
at grassroots level 
at grassroots level 
are given equal share in the
are given equal share in the
role, power, information and decision making in
role, power, information and decision making in
the process of planning and development by
the process of planning and development by
establishing equitable partnerships through legal
establishing equitable partnerships through legal
contracts.
contracts.
Institutional framework of equitable partnerships
Institutional framework of equitable partnerships
can convert vicious circle into  opportunities of
can convert vicious circle into  opportunities of
self-reinforcing and cumulative stock of social
self-reinforcing and cumulative stock of social
capital, trust, norms and social networks.
capital, trust, norms and social networks.
5
Relationship of Trust, Social Capital
and Volunteer Cooperation
S
S
o
o
c
c
i
i
a
a
l
l
 
 
C
C
a
a
p
p
i
i
t
t
a
a
l
l
 
 
i
i
s
s
 
 
t
t
h
h
e
e
 
 
a
a
b
b
i
i
l
l
i
i
t
t
y
y
 
 
o
o
f
f
 
 
p
p
e
e
o
o
p
p
l
l
e
e
 
 
t
t
o
o
 
 
w
w
o
o
r
r
k
k
t
t
o
o
g
g
e
e
t
t
h
h
e
e
r
r
 
 
f
f
o
o
r
r
 
 
c
c
o
o
m
m
m
m
o
o
n
n
 
 
p
p
u
u
r
r
p
p
o
o
s
s
e
e
 
 
a
a
n
n
d
d
 
 
o
o
r
r
g
g
a
a
n
n
i
i
z
z
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
.
.
 
 
[
[
1
1
]
]
Like other forms of capital, social capital is
Like other forms of capital, social capital is
productive, making possible the achievement of
productive, making possible the achievement of
certain ends that would not be attainable in its
certain ends that would not be attainable in its
absence
absence
. 
. 
[1]
[1]
Social capital is a public good, unlike conventional
Social capital is a public good, unlike conventional
capital, social capital is not the private property of
capital, social capital is not the private property of
any of the persons who benefits from it. 
any of the persons who benefits from it. 
[1]
[1]
[
[
1
1
]
]
 
 
J
J
a
a
m
m
e
e
s
s
 
 
S
S
.
.
 
 
C
C
o
o
l
l
e
e
m
m
a
a
n
n
 
 
(
(
1
1
9
9
9
9
0
0
)
)
 
 
F
F
o
o
u
u
n
n
d
d
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
 
 
o
o
f
f
 
 
S
S
o
o
c
c
i
i
a
a
l
l
 
 
T
T
h
h
e
e
o
o
r
r
y
y
.
.
 
 
C
C
a
a
m
m
b
b
r
r
i
i
d
d
g
g
e
e
,
,
 
 
M
M
a
a
s
s
s
s
.
.
:
:
 
 
H
H
a
a
r
r
v
v
a
a
r
r
d
d
U
U
n
n
i
i
v
v
e
e
r
r
s
s
i
i
t
t
y
y
 
 
P
P
r
r
e
e
s
s
s
s
)
)
 
 
p
p
.
.
 
 
3
3
0
0
2
2
,
,
 
 
-
-
.
.
2
2
0
0
4
4
,
,
 
 
p
p
.
.
3
3
0
0
7
7
.
.
6
Trust is an essential component of Social
Trust is an essential component of Social
Capital and it is a moral resource. Its supply
Capital and it is a moral resource. Its supply
increases rather than decreases through use
increases rather than decreases through use
and  it  become depleted if not used. 
and  it  become depleted if not used. 
[1]
[1]
Social capital, unlike other forms of capital,
Social capital, unlike other forms of capital,
must often be produced as a by-product of
must often be produced as a by-product of
other social activities. 
other social activities. 
[2]
[2]
The more two people display trust towards
The more two people display trust towards
one another, the greater their mutual
one another, the greater their mutual
confidence.
confidence.
 
 
[2]
[2]
[
[
1
1
]
]
 
 
J
J
a
a
m
m
e
e
s
s
 
 
C
C
o
o
l
l
e
e
m
m
a
a
n
n
,
,
 
 
1
1
9
9
8
8
8
8
,
,
 
 
s
s
e
e
e
e
 
 
i
i
n
n
 
 
F
F
u
u
k
k
u
u
y
y
a
a
m
m
a
a
 
 
(
(
1
1
9
9
9
9
5
5
)
)
,
,
 
 
p
p
.
.
1
1
0
0
]
]
  
  
[2]
[2]
 
 
 
 
Putnam Robert D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
Putnam Robert D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
  
  
Princeton 
Princeton 
 
 
University Press. Page 170
University Press. Page 170
7
Trust lubricates cooperation and
Trust lubricates cooperation and
cooperation generates trust in turn. 
cooperation generates trust in turn. 
[1]
[1]
Ostrom (1990), giving example of CPR,
Ostrom (1990), giving example of CPR,
concludes:
concludes:
 
 
 
 
 
 
W
W
h
h
e
e
n
n
 
 
i
i
n
n
d
d
i
i
v
v
i
i
d
d
u
u
a
a
l
l
s
s
 
 
h
h
a
a
v
v
e
e
 
 
l
l
i
i
v
v
e
e
d
d
 
 
i
i
n
n
 
 
s
s
u
u
c
c
h
h
s
s
i
i
t
t
u
u
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
s
s
 
 
f
f
o
o
r
r
 
 
a
a
 
 
s
s
u
u
b
b
s
s
t
t
a
a
n
n
t
t
i
i
a
a
l
l
 
 
t
t
i
i
m
m
e
e
 
 
a
a
n
n
d
d
 
 
h
h
a
a
v
v
e
e
d
d
e
e
v
v
e
e
l
l
o
o
p
p
e
e
d
d
 
 
s
s
h
h
a
a
r
r
e
e
d
d
 
 
n
n
o
o
r
r
m
m
s
s
 
 
a
a
n
n
d
d
 
 
p
p
a
a
t
t
t
t
e
e
r
r
n
n
s
s
 
 
o
o
f
f
r
r
e
e
c
c
i
i
p
p
r
r
o
o
c
c
i
i
t
t
y
y
,
,
 
 
t
t
h
h
e
e
y
y
 
 
p
p
o
o
s
s
s
s
e
e
s
s
s
s
 
 
s
s
o
o
c
c
i
i
a
a
l
l
 
 
c
c
a
a
p
p
i
i
t
t
a
a
l
l
w
w
i
i
t
t
h
h
 
 
w
w
h
h
i
i
c
c
h
h
 
 
t
t
h
h
e
e
y
y
 
 
c
c
a
a
n
n
 
 
b
b
u
u
i
i
l
l
d
d
 
 
i
i
n
n
s
s
t
t
i
i
t
t
u
u
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
a
a
l
l
a
a
r
r
r
r
a
a
n
n
g
g
e
e
m
m
e
e
n
n
t
t
s
s
 
 
f
f
o
o
r
r
 
 
r
r
e
e
s
s
o
o
l
l
v
v
i
i
n
n
g
g
 
 
C
C
P
P
R
R
 
 
d
d
i
i
l
l
e
e
m
m
m
m
a
a
s
s
.
.
[
[
2
2
]
]
 
 
 
 
[1]
[1]
 
 
 
 
A. O. Hirschman, “Against Parsimony: Three Easy Ways of Complicating Some Categories of
A. O. Hirschman, “Against Parsimony: Three Easy Ways of Complicating Some Categories of
Economic Discourse,” 
Economic Discourse,” 
American Economic Review
American Economic Review
 Proceedings 74 (1984): 93, as cited in Partha
 Proceedings 74 (1984): 93, as cited in Partha
Dasgupta, “Trust as a Commodity,” in 
Dasgupta, “Trust as a Commodity,” in 
Trust, 
Trust, 
ed. Gambetta, p.56. (Mentioned in Putnam 1993, p.
ed. Gambetta, p.56. (Mentioned in Putnam 1993, p.
169)
169)
 
 
[2]
[2]
 Elinor Ostrom (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Actions. New York:
 Elinor Ostrom (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Actions. New York:
Cambridge University Press. Page 183-184. (Mentioned in Putnam 1993, p. 169)
Cambridge University Press. Page 183-184. (Mentioned in Putnam 1993, p. 169)
8
F
a
i
l
u
r
e
 
o
f
 
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
 
L
e
d
 
M
o
d
e
l
s
 
o
f
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
 
i
n
 
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
 
C
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
In perspective of third world countries
In perspective of third world countries
(Indo-Pak subcontinent), David C. Korten
(Indo-Pak subcontinent), David C. Korten
(1986) 
(1986) 
[1]
[1]
  classifies the government-led
  classifies the government-led
approaches of participatory development
approaches of participatory development
into three types:
into three types:
1.
Community Development 
Community Development 
(1950-mid 60’s)
(1950-mid 60’s)
2.
Popular Participation 
Popular Participation 
(1960’s – 1970’s)
(1960’s – 1970’s)
3.
Decentralization  
Decentralization  
( 1980’s ~ )
( 1980’s ~ )
[1]
[1]
 Korten, D. C. (1986) Community Management: Asian Experience and
 Korten, D. C. (1986) Community Management: Asian Experience and
Perspectives. Kumarian Press. p. 8-10
Perspectives. Kumarian Press. p. 8-10
9
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
 
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
1
9
5
0
 
m
i
d
 
t
o
 
6
0
s
)
Government-Led programs of community
development largely failed because:
Program  were formulated centrally
Implemented through conventional bureaucratic
structures
Little regard to the willingness or capability of
the people.
Little effort was devoted to building
independent, member-controlled local
organizations which can be able to solve local
problems, mobilize local resources.
10
P
o
p
u
l
a
r
 
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
9
6
0
s
 
t
o
 
e
a
r
l
y
 
1
9
7
0
s
)
In programs the importance of popular
participation was heavily stressed but in reality
meaningful participation was largely precluded
by the planning procedures.
The key decisions for projects were all centrally
determined by planning experts.
These experts had neither the incentive nor the
means to obtain meaningful inputs from
unorganized, poorly educated, and widely
dispersed beneficiaries to the design of multi-
million dollar projects.
11
Once such plans were completed and
accepted, the only avenue left for beneficiary
communities  was to provide  volunteer
cooperation  to implement decisions in which
they had no part.
Furthermore, these plans were implemented
through centralized, hierarchical, rule-bound
development agencies.
And there was little or no accountability to the
people who had a direct interest in actual
outcomes.
12
D
e
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
9
8
0
s
 
~
 
o
n
w
a
r
d
)
In this approach, the  administrative functions are
In this approach, the  administrative functions are
decentralized to implement the national programs
decentralized to implement the national programs
through local administrative units.
through local administrative units.
The local administrative units are accountable to
The local administrative units are accountable to
local political structures for responsive decision
local political structures for responsive decision
making.
making.
The role and power of decision making was in the
The role and power of decision making was in the
hands of government agencies while communities
hands of government agencies while communities
were used as tool to implement agenda of central
were used as tool to implement agenda of central
government or donor agencies. As an outcome
government or donor agencies. As an outcome
these approaches strengthened the vicious circle of
these approaches strengthened the vicious circle of
distrust.
distrust.
13
Vicious Circle of Trust and Development
Government-Led 
Community Participation
(Centralized approach,
Inappropriate Rules , 
donor driven)
Unequal Participation
Government: 
Right to Exit
Communities: 
Volunteer/  
Asymmetries of role, power,
Risk, Capital
Low Trust 
Society
Declined Social 
Capital and reduced 
volunteer 
cooperation 
FAILURE
Inappropriate goal setting
Inefficient use of resources
Corruption  
14
The vicious circle of trust and development
is strengthened due to centralized systems
of governance and inappropriate rules in
the government led approaches of
community participation.
 These participation approaches are
unequal in nature because at one side
communities are expected to extend
volunteer cooperation while on the other
side the government agencies retain the
‘right to exit’ from the project at any stage
without its completion.
15
Due to asymmetries of the role, power,
risk and resource allocation and its
utilization, these unequal partnerships fail
to generate trustworthy working
relationship between communities and
government agencies.
Moreover due to the inappropriate goal
setting without considering the priority
needs of beneficiary communities, the real
problems of communities are usually not
addressed properly.
On the part of government agencies,
absence of legislative accountability,
corruption and inefficient utilization of
financial resources results in widespread
distrust in the communities.
16
Trust
C
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
 
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
 
b
a
s
e
d
 
o
n
c
o
m
m
o
n
l
y
 
s
h
a
r
e
d
 
n
o
r
m
s
 
i
n
 
a
 
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
(Fukuyama, 1995)
High Trust Society
(Developed Nations)
Substantial Stock of Social Capital, 
High volunteer cooperation,
Social networks 
Low Trust Society
(Developing Nations)
Low Stock of Social Capital, 
Widespread distrust in society
N
o
r
m
s
 
o
f
 
R
e
c
i
p
r
o
c
i
t
y
 
&
 
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
 
o
f
 
c
i
v
i
c
 
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
 
a
r
e
 
t
w
o
 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
o
f
 
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
 
s
o
c
i
a
l
 
t
r
u
s
t
 
(
P
u
t
n
a
m
,
 
1
9
9
3
)
social capital
:
 the ability of people to work together for common purpose in
groups and organizations (James S. Coleman, 1988. See in Fukuyama
(1995) p. 10 )
What is Low Trust Society?
17
Putnam and Fukuyama assumes that institutions
easily flourish in ‘high trust society’ because of high
stock of accumulated social capital.
But  ‘Low Trust Society’ can never escape out of the
vicious circle of distrust because of low stock of
social capital which diminishes with disuse.
This means the gap between high and low trust
society will continue to widen in development
context.
But we see that many communities in “low trust
societies” have demonstrated best practices for
cooperative actions. That means the division of high
trust and low trust societies is not appropriate.
Within the low trust society, high level of trust exists.
We need to redefine trust situation.
18
Social Trust  in Development Process
Social Trust  in Development Process
Extended Trust
Low
High
Internal
Trust
Low
High
19
T
T
r
r
u
u
s
s
t
t
:
:
T
T
r
r
u
u
s
s
t
t
 
 
i
i
s
s
 
 
t
t
h
h
e
e
 
 
e
e
x
x
p
p
e
e
c
c
t
t
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
 
 
t
t
h
h
a
a
t
t
 
 
a
a
r
r
i
i
s
s
e
e
s
s
 
 
w
w
i
i
t
t
h
h
i
i
n
n
 
 
a
a
c
c
o
o
m
m
m
m
u
u
n
n
i
i
t
t
y
y
 
 
o
o
f
f
 
 
r
r
e
e
g
g
u
u
l
l
a
a
r
r
,
,
 
 
h
h
o
o
n
n
e
e
s
s
t
t
,
,
 
 
a
a
n
n
d
d
 
 
c
c
o
o
o
o
p
p
e
e
r
r
a
a
t
t
i
i
v
v
e
e
b
b
e
e
h
h
a
a
v
v
i
i
o
o
r
r
,
,
 
 
b
b
a
a
s
s
e
e
d
d
 
 
o
o
n
n
 
 
c
c
o
o
m
m
m
m
o
o
n
n
l
l
y
y
 
 
s
s
h
h
a
a
r
r
e
e
d
d
 
 
n
n
o
o
r
r
m
m
,
,
 
 
o
o
n
n
 
 
t
t
h
h
e
e
p
p
a
a
r
r
t
t
 
 
o
o
f
f
 
 
o
o
t
t
h
h
e
e
r
r
 
 
m
m
e
e
m
m
b
b
e
e
r
r
s
s
 
 
o
o
f
f
 
 
t
t
h
h
a
a
t
t
 
 
c
c
o
o
m
m
m
m
u
u
n
n
i
i
t
t
y
y
.
.
 
 
[
[
1
1
]
]
 
 
Internal Trust:
Internal Trust:
The set of ethical habits and reciprocal moral obligations
The set of ethical habits and reciprocal moral obligations
internalized by each of the community member. High
internalized by each of the community member. High
stock of social capital, high interaction and  high
stock of social capital, high interaction and  high
volunteer cooperation within the community are the
volunteer cooperation within the community are the
features of high internal trust.
features of high internal trust.
 
 
Extended Trust:
Extended Trust:
Trust extended to government agencies/ external agents
Trust extended to government agencies/ external agents
of development by the  communities possessing high
of development by the  communities possessing high
internal trust.
internal trust.
[1] Fukuyama, Francis (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press Paperback
[1] Fukuyama, Francis (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press Paperback
20
Within the ‘low trust society’, social trust is divided
Within the ‘low trust society’, social trust is divided
into ‘internal trust’ and ‘extended trust’. Stock of
into ‘internal trust’ and ‘extended trust’. Stock of
social capital in ‘internal trust’ provides base for
social capital in ‘internal trust’ provides base for
extended trust.
extended trust.
Every society possesses traditionally some stock of
Every society possesses traditionally some stock of
social capital with varying degree of social trust.
social capital with varying degree of social trust.
Their level of 
Their level of 
extended trust
extended trust
 depends on the 
 depends on the 
role, power,
role, power,
share in information, capital, and risks
share in information, capital, and risks
; given to them by
; given to them by
the government agencies. The extended trust ends in
the government agencies. The extended trust ends in
distrust when government fails to fulfill its  promised
distrust when government fails to fulfill its  promised
If institutional framework guarantees to eliminate
If institutional framework guarantees to eliminate
the asymmetries and inequalities of partnerships, it
the asymmetries and inequalities of partnerships, it
can generate social trust with high level of extended
can generate social trust with high level of extended
trust.
trust.
Slide Note
Embed
Share

Models of participatory development in low-trust societies highlight the failure of government-led approaches due to inequalities and distrust between government agencies and communities. Breaking this vicious circle requires establishing equitable partnerships and ensuring equal roles in planning and decision-making to foster trust and social capital for mutual cooperation.


Uploaded on Sep 16, 2024 | 0 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 011. Models of Participatory Development in the Context of Low Trust Society A Comparative Study of Environmental Infrastructure Projects in Pakistan 1

  2. Breaking the Vicious Circle of Distrust and Underdevelopment It is generally realized by development planners that in low trust society the government-led approaches of participatory development fail because the beneficiary communities are not given their justified role in the process of planning and decision making. These inequalities and asymmetries devastate social trust and give rise to the accumulation of distrust between government agencies and communities. As a result, the vicious circle of trust and development appears. 2

  3. This vicious circle of distrust gets stronger due to centralized bureaucratic system of government because central control of resource allocation brutalizes social relations and gives rise to widespread corruption in the society. In government-led approaches of participatory development, the government agencies retain the right to exit from the project in their hands while communities are expected to extend volunteer cooperation. Particularly, when government agencies exit from the project without completion communities helpless and complainant, the vicious circle of trust and development is further strengthened. by leaving 3

  4. Cooperation needs trust and trust generates atmosphere for mutual cooperation. In order to establish a trustworthy working relation between government agencies and the community, it is necessary to break this vicious circle. This vicious circle can be broken if communities at grassroots level are given equal share in the role, power, information and decision making in the process of planning and development by establishing equitable partnerships through legal contracts. Institutional framework of equitable partnerships can convert vicious circle into opportunities of self-reinforcing and cumulative stock of social capital, trust, norms and social networks. 4

  5. Relationship of Trust, Social Capital and Volunteer Cooperation Social Capital is the ability of people to work together for common purpose and organization. [1] Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends that would not be attainable in its absence. [1] Social capital is a public good, unlike conventional capital, social capital is not the private property of any of the persons who benefits from it. [1] [1] James S. Coleman (1990) Foundation of Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press) p. 302, -.204, p.307. 5

  6. Trust is an essential component of Social Capital and it is a moral resource. Its supply increases rather than decreases through use and it become depleted if not used. [1] Social capital, unlike other forms of capital, must often be produced as a by-product of other social activities. [2] The more two people display trust towards one another, the greater their mutual confidence.[2] [1] James Coleman, 1988, see in Fukuyama (1995), p.10] [2] Putnam Robert D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press. Page 170 6

  7. Trust cooperation generates trust in turn. [1] Ostrom (1990), giving example of CPR, concludes: When individuals have lived in such situations for a substantial time and have developed shared norms and patterns of reciprocity, they possess social capital with which they can build institutional arrangements for resolving CPR dilemmas. [2] A. O. Hirschman, Against Parsimony: Three Easy Ways of Complicating Some Categories of Economic Discourse, American Economic Review Proceedings 74 (1984): 93, as cited in Partha Dasgupta, Trust as a Commodity, in Trust, ed. Gambetta, p.56. (Mentioned in Putnam 1993, p. 169) [2] Elinor Ostrom (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Actions. New York: Cambridge University Press. Page 183-184. (Mentioned in Putnam 1993, p. 169) lubricates cooperation and [1] 7

  8. Failure of Government Led Models of Participation in Developing Countries In perspective of third world countries (Indo-Pak subcontinent), David C. Korten (1986) [1] classifies the government-led approaches of participatory development into three types: 1. Community Development (1950-mid 60 s) 2. Popular Participation (1960 s 1970 s) 3. Decentralization ( 1980 s ~ ) [1] Korten, D. C. (1986) Community Management: Asian Experience and Perspectives. Kumarian Press. p. 8-10 8

  9. Community Development (1950 mid to 60 s) Government-Led programs development largely failed because: Program were formulated centrally Implemented through conventional bureaucratic structures Little regard to the willingness or capability of the people. Little effort was independent, member-controlled organizations which can be able to solve local problems, mobilize local resources. of community devoted to building local 9

  10. Popular Participation (1960 s to early 1970 s) In participation was heavily stressed but in reality meaningful participation was largely precluded by the planning procedures. The key decisions for projects were all centrally determined by planning experts. These experts had neither the incentive nor the means to obtain meaningful inputs from unorganized, poorly educated, and widely dispersed beneficiaries to the design of multi- million dollar projects. programs the importance of popular 10

  11. Once such plans were completed and accepted, the only avenue left for beneficiary communities was to provide volunteer cooperation to implement decisions in which they had no part. Furthermore, these plans were implemented through centralized, hierarchical, rule-bound development agencies. And there was little or no accountability to the people who had a direct interest in actual outcomes. 11

  12. Decentralization (1980 s ~ onward) In this approach, the administrative functions are decentralized to implement the national programs through local administrative units. The local administrative units are accountable to local political structures for responsive decision making. The role and power of decision making was in the hands of government agencies while communities were used as tool to implement agenda of central government or donor agencies. As an outcome these approaches strengthened the vicious circle of distrust. 12

  13. Vicious Circle of Trust and Development Government-Led Community Participation (Centralized approach, Inappropriate Rules , donor driven) Low Trust Society Declined Social Capital and reduced volunteer cooperation Unequal Participation Government: Right to Exit Communities: Volunteer/ Asymmetries of role, power, Risk, Capital FAILURE Inappropriate goal setting Inefficient use of resources Corruption 13

  14. The vicious circle of trust and development is strengthened due to centralized systems of governance and inappropriate rules in the government led community participation. approaches of These unequal in nature because at one side communities are expected to extend volunteer cooperation while on the other side the government agencies retain the right to exit from the project at any stage without its completion. participation approaches are 14

  15. Due to asymmetries of the role, power, risk and resource allocation and its utilization, these unequal partnerships fail to generate trustworthy relationship between communities and government agencies. Moreover due to the inappropriate goal setting without considering the priority needs of beneficiary communities, the real problems of communities are usually not addressed properly. On the part of government agencies, absence of legislative corruption and inefficient utilization of financial resources results in widespread distrust in the communities. working accountability, 15

  16. What is Low Trust Society? Trust Cooperative behavior based on commonly shared norms in a community (Fukuyama, 1995) Norms of Reciprocity & network of civic engagements are two sources of generating social trust (Putnam, 1993) High Trust Society (Developed Nations) Substantial Stock of Social Capital, High volunteer cooperation, Social networks Low Trust Society (Developing Nations) Low Stock of Social Capital, Widespread distrust in society social capital: the ability of people to work together for common purpose in groups and organizations (James S. Coleman, 1988. See in Fukuyama (1995) p. 10 ) 16

  17. Putnam and Fukuyama assumes that institutions easily flourish in high trust society because of high stock of accumulated social capital. But Low Trust Society can never escape out of the vicious circle of distrust because of low stock of social capital which diminishes with disuse. This means the gap between high and low trust society will continue to widen in development context. But we see that many communities in low trust societies have demonstrated best practices for cooperative actions. That means the division of high trust and low trust societies is not appropriate. Within the low trust society, high level of trust exists. We need to redefine trust situation. 17

  18. Social Trust in Development Process Extended Trust Low High Limits of self-organized communities: Widespread Distrust, weak norms, Dishonesty, Less Social Capital, Low potential of self organization Scale of collaboration Low Public-Private Partnerships (Asymmetric relationship between govt. and communities). Internal Trust Needs bondage of contracts High cooperation, High volunteerism, Ready to cooperate without contracts, Enriched Social Capital and Trust. Self Organized Community: High Within the community there is high volunteer cooperation and social networks. 18

  19. Within the low trust society, social trust is divided into internaltrust and extendedtrust . Stock of social capital in internaltrust provides base for extended trust. Every society possesses traditionally some stock of social capital with varying degree of social trust. Their level of extended trust depends on the role, power, share in information, capital, and risks; given to them by the government agencies. The extended trust ends in distrust when government fails to fulfill its promised If institutional framework guarantees to eliminate the asymmetries and inequalities of partnerships, it can generate social trust with high level of extended trust. 20

Related


More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#