The spectrum of participation in DC covers a wide range, from mere information and two-way consultation via decision-sharing all the way to self-determination. Whereas projects used to count as participatory if stakeholders were merely informed or consulted, the trend today is in favour of involving the population more actively; this is the only way to make projects effective long-term.

Empowerment
In the context of current development policy, empowerment plays a vital part. At issue is a process enabling people to exercise increasing influence and control over the decisions, resources, rights, policies and processes that determine their lives. At a concrete level empowerment is about helping people to lead a self-determined, independent life – maybe by means of counselling, education and training, or of legal safeguards and support in developing communal organizational structures. No sustainable success in development is possible without empowerment.

Ownership
In the sense of active participation the issue here is helping disadvantaged segments of the population to “become owners”, i.e. to develop initiative and personal responsibility. Rather than being empowered from outside, as was often the case with “helping people to help themselves” or purely charitable approaches, they should act as principals in their own stand-alone process. In this context identifying with a project plays a vital part.

Capacity Development
In DC there is a close thematic link between participation and capacity development. The concept has been defined as extending people’s/organizations’/societies’ capacity to put resources to work effectively and efficiently so as to achieve their own goals with permanent impact. Earlier the focus was mainly on developing technical capabilities; more recently the emphasis has shifted to promoting the organizations in the partner countries.

from Gudrun Lettmayer, Joanneum Research

Over the last 40 years changing development theories invariably reflected the social trends which the “developed” countries were currently subject to; and it is no different with the practice of development cooperation based on these theories. Thus it was natural that “participation”, as an instrument which it was hoped would lead to effectiveness, efficiency and high quality in projects and to the empowerment and ownership of the stakeholders, became a keystone of the modern Western understanding of DC.

Establishing a theoretical place for participation in development programs is one thing; the other side of the coin is the diversity of interpretations of the concept, as revealed by how it is applied in the reality of development processes in many different countries.

The basic questions are always: “Who is to participate?”, “To what extent?” and “How?” Here the differing perspectives of typical agents of development cooperation (e.g. Western sponsor, local traditional village group, Western NGO, local modern administration, etc....) can and do collide.

• “Who is to participate?” is connected with critical questions such as: Who needs what information, who is willing to provide what information? Who are the relevant (potential) partners in the target country, or who represents them? Whose support is necessary for a project to become feasible in the first place (power structure)?
• „To what extent“ and when can/should this participation take place? As early as the stage of identifying and formulating development programs? When specific projects are being designed and planned? In project evaluation – or even at the level of financial control? Or only during project implementation? Who decides how much participation “is a good thing”?
• And „How“? By holding up a board with information about a school project, by putting up a wall in the school, or by deciding about school activities and how to use the school budget? Is being informed, being consulted, being entitled to evaluate, to lend a helping hand or to take decisions?

Many of these aspects are very similar to participation issues in Europe. The special feature of the participation question in North-South cooperation is that here areas of conflict open up that have much to do with cross-cultural understanding of roles, and with differences in power – financial, but also structural and to do with know-how – that per se call the idea of “equal partners” into question. One major obstacle to participation is lack of time and the pressure to produce results that development cooperation is exposed to. Participatory cooperation “on the same level” – particularly across cultural boundaries – is a process that takes time and cannot be planned down to the last detail; you have to know what risks and opportunities you are letting yourself in for.