Waheduzzaman School of Management, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

Transcription

1 CONCEPTUALIZING PEOPLE S PARTICIPATION FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE Waheduzzaman School of Management, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia wahedz@gmail.com Preferred Stream: Public Sector and Not-For-Profit Profile: Waheduzzaman is a PhD student in the School of Management at Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. His research title is People s participation for good governance: a study of development programs in Bangladesh. He came from Bangladesh, and he is a public service manager in his country. In the last fourteen years he has worked in different levels and sectors in Bangladesh. Basically he worked in the management area of human resources including employees development, motivation and placement in the public sector in Bangladesh.

2 CONCEPTUALIZING PEOPLE S PARTICIPATION FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE Abstract: Establishing good governance through people s participation in developing countries is demanded by the International Aid Agencies and donor countries as a prerequisite of aid assistance. But, the question is: up to what extent is participation necessary to achieve the good governance. Literature relating to this concern has been reviewed to find a linkage between the stages of people s participation and the level of the governance quality. The results of this review show that four stages of people s participation, namely: information, consultation, involvement and empowerment, are proportionately linked to each of the four models of governance, which are the power model, bureaucratic model, political model and democratic model. Moreover, participating instruments that are used in the different stages of participation are also linked to the different levels of governance quality. Keywords: Governance, Citizen Participation, Empowerment, Local Government, Stakeholder Collaboration, Good governance Introduction: In recent years, issues of good governance have received increasingly serious attention from researchers, policy-makers and the international development institutions. In fact, good governance is considered as the crucial element to be incorporated in today s development strategies in response to globalization (Santiso, 2001). Contemporary discussions on good governance are leading towards describing it as a system, or as a process or as a working device of the government programs, as per the law of the land, to maximize the benefit for the people. More specifically, it is about the quality of governance, which expresses itself through such attributes as accountability, transparency, efficiency, empowerment, participation, sustainability, equity and justice (Hye, 2000:7). Different international and local bodies have identified several features for good governance, including accountability, transparency, people s participation and predictability, which are universally recognised. But people s participation occupies the central stage of discourse, because it is the people who are the ultimate target to be served and who will testify to the quality of the governance (Caddy, 2001). On the other hand, people s participation has increasingly become a key element for development projects for the maximum outcome of the investment (Bishop and Davis, 2002; Shepherd, 2000). This 2

3 changing context, from rigid bureaucratic process to pro-people approach, has shifted the concept of government to governance, and has introduced many instruments to engage local community in development programs. Many social scientists comprehend that a greater level of participation would improve the decisions and implementation strategies that ensure better outcomes for development programs (Mumpower, 2001). Rahman (2005:1) stated that people engagement also increase the level of transparency and accountability and improve the quality of governance. The above literature thus provides the idea that people s participation levels have a relation with the level of governance. In this context, a study is needed to establish the linkage between the different stages of people s participation and the different qualities of governance. This will help to identify the present quality of governance of an agency at its existing level of participation. Considering the situation, this study aims to reconceptualise the notions of people s participation, participating instruments and good governance to find the relationship between them. Conceptualizing Good Governance: The notion of good governance is presently a popular discourse amongst intellectuals, politicians, donor agents, development workers, and administrators. This is not only because of the increasing demand for economic development, but also because of the extensive expansion of the role and responsibilities of the government to its people. Different scholars and international agencies have defined the term good governance in different ways. Some social scientists define good governance in a very simple way, as the level of goodness (Besancon, 2003) or quality (Santiso, 2001) of government. On the other hand, Langlands (2004) defined good governance as good management, which underpins good performance, good use of public money, good public engagement and, ultimately, good outcomes. Conversely, some social scientists pointed to the term as a reform strategy of governance, where that strategy is particularly used to strengthen the institutions of civil society with the objective of making government more accountable, more open, transparent and more democratic (Minogue, 1997). In contrast, International Donor Agencies have used a normative approach to describe good governance, focusing on management factors to promote economic issues. These approaches have been started after the World Bank first recognized the crisis in Sub-Saharan Africa as a crisis of governance in 1989, and good public management as a precondition of the 3

4 development assistance strategy for developing countries (Kaufmann, Kraay and Mastruzzi, 2003). With the help of the World Bank, a group of social scientists have identified a set of governance indicators, covering almost two hundred countries from the period , which is recognized as an effective measurement tool across the world. The indicators have focused on six dimensions, which Predictability + are: accountability and participation, political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, Transparency Participation rule of law, and control of corruption (World Bank 2003). The United Nations + Accountability Development Program (UNDP), by contrast, Fig-1: A diagram of good governance prescribed that governance is good when it subscribes to nine characteristics, which are: Participation, Strategic Vision, Rule of Law, Transparency, Consensus Orientation, Equity Building, Effectiveness & Efficiency and Accountability (UNDP, 1997). Likewise, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) identified four basic components of good governance: accountability, participation, predictability, and transparency. By accountability is meant the imperative to make public officials answerable for government behaviour and responsive to the entity from which they derive their authority. The principle of participation derives from the acceptance that people are at the heart of development. People need to have access to the institutions that promote it. Predictability refers to (i) the existence of laws, regulations, and policies to regulate society and (ii) their fair and consistent application. Transparency refers to the availability of information to the general public and clarity about government rules, regulations and decisions (Turner and Hulme, 1997, Gurung, 2000). These four elements of good governance are considered as four Pillars, which are universally applicable regardless of the economic orientation, strategic priorities on policy choices of the government (Rahman, 2006:54). A diagram of good governance with these four elements has been drawn in figure-1. These attributes, pointed out by the both donors and scholars, therefore, indicate a growing emphasis on economic development through an effective people oriented governance. Conceptually, the four major elements of good governance tend to be mutually supportive, but people participation is the 4

5 central element among these (Sarker, 2003; Box, 1998). More clearly, a people-participatory government ensures more transparent, accountable and predictable governance for its people. Underpinning the perception, Shelley (2000:5) specified the concept of good governance, as: it has to be not just pro-people or people-centred; it has to be owned by people. More concisely, good governance described by Azmat (2007:53), is a government for the people, aiming accountable to the people, transparent to the people, abide by the rule of people, for the betterment of the people. These definitions indicate that the quality of governance would be increased with the increase in people s participation. Conceptualizing People s Participation: Whatever the urge for engaging people in the governance process, for a very long time, people were seen as the mere recipients of government services without having any role in policy-formulation, decision-making or in program implementation. Although participation sometimes causes delay in decision-making (Innes and Booher, 2004) or increases cost (Olson, 1965) or brings conflict (Bureekul, 2000), most critics describe it as a mean of sustainability of development programs (Carley, 2006; Siroros, 2002). Geddes (2005) argued that people s participation should be central to local governance to ensure welfare and ameliorate poverty. Similarly a report of the World Bank shows that a one standard deviation increase in people s participation and accountability can cause a 2½ fold increase in per capita income, a 4 fold decrease in infant mortality and a 15 to 25 percent increase in literacy (Kaufmann, Kraay and Lobaton, 1999). In fact, good governance in many countries is being obstructed for lack of opportunity for people s participation in government policy formulation and decision-making (UNDP, 2006). Stages of participation: Except for a few (Thomas, 1993; Vroom and Yetton, 1973), most scientists have described that people s engagement needs to be a continuous process to be an effective element in the implementation of development programs. Different social scientists have recommended different stages of the people s participation process in local development programs. A metaphoric eight rung 5

6 ladder of participation process has been developed by Arnstein (1969). The eight rungs are: i) Manipulation, ii) Therapy, iii) Informing, iv) Consultation, v) Placation, vi) Partnership, vii) Delegated power and viii) Citizen control. In contrast, Wilcox (1994) and the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2, 2003) proposed five stages of people s participation, which are: 1) Informing, 2) Consulting, 3) Involving or Deciding together, 4) Collaborating or Acting together, and 5) Empowering. However, amongst these different stages of participation, the following four stages have been selected broadly, as these are common and universal. Stage-1: Informing- it is a one-way process, where people are the mere recipients and the agency is the supplier. At this stage, the governing-agency tells people about their decision before or during implementation of development programs. Stage- 2: Consulting- it is two-way communication, where the governing agency comes to the people with their proposal and consults over the matter in order to make the decision of implementation. But, the engagement of people is usually limited within the duration of the decision making process of the program. Moreover, people are being heard by the project implementation body without having confirmation that their opinion will be taken into account for the final decision. Moreover, the people have no scope to be involved in all of the phases of the project implementation. The governing body usually informs people, so as to get token feedback, and after that makes a decision and implements program unilaterally. Stage- 3: Involving- at this stage the governing agency involves people in decision-making, engages people with the budget distribution, and implements the whole program together. But, at this level the community/stakeholders, as a whole, are not given the scope to be engaged. This is because of the factional involvement of people that can occur in this kind of process. In practice, at this stage, the authority tends to consult only with a selected group of people and only lets that group be involved in the program instead of including the whole community. Stage-4: Empowering- at this stage the governing agency creates the scope for developing the capacity of people to come forward with their decisions and resources to implement development programs jointly. In reality, people control the governance and the agency plays the role of facilitator for development implementation at this stage. 6

7 One study shows that, today, most governing agencies follow the consulting or involving stage of people s engagement in the implementation of development programs (Shand and Arnberg, 1996). Instruments used in different stages of participation: For different levels of engagement, the institutions use different types of instruments to develop awareness of local community. The following table shows some of these instruments: Stages of Participation Informing Consulting Involving/ partnership Empowering/ Control Robinson, 2002 Letterboxing, Information night, Awareness campaign Survey, Seminar, Exhibition and comments Community advisory committee, Stakeholder Consultative workshops Deliberative forum, Citizen jury, Referendum Participating Instruments and Sources Local Government Association, 2007 Newsletter, Direct mail out, local press column, displays Public meetings, Surveys, Discussions, Word forum, Focus group Advisory groups, Precinct committee, Steering committees Bishop and Davis, 2002 Table 1: Relation of people s participation stages with participating instruments. Surveys, Focus groups, Public information campaign Key contacts, interest group meetings, public meetings, discussion papers, public hearings Advisory boards, Citizens advisory committees, policy community forum, public inquiries Referendum, Community parliaments, Electronic voting However, these abovementioned participating instruments are not one shoe fits all for every society (OECD, 2000). Moreover, different types of programs need different types of instruments. For example, public hearing has been used for a long time in North American countries, but it has not been shown to be effective in Thailand where it has been tried for more than a decade (Manowong and Ogunlana, 2006). Relationship between Good Governance and People s Participation: On the basis of the people s participation stage, four models have been developed by researchers to describe qualities of governance. These are: 1) Managerial model top down approach of implementation, marginal scope for people s participation; 2) Legislative model decision making process initiated from the top to develop a common agenda through consulting the people; 3) Limited community participation model engage community to open up the decision making process that finally generates harmony within the governing body and/ or within the community; and 4) Community empowerment model bottom up approach that happens because of extensive community 7

8 participation (Gibson, Lacy & Dougherty 2005). As the literature has revealed, people s participation is the central element of good governance, thus levels of people s participation are linked to the level of governance. Reviewing these statements and models, an outline and diagram of models of governance can be drawn up, on the basis of people s participation, which is shown along with the following lines. Power Model: This model evolves when people s participation remains at stage 1, that is, at the information level. In this situation, decisions and resources come from the top and projects are implemented mostly by the bureaucrats of the local agency, following rigidly prescribed processes, where people are treated as passive recipients. Authorities usually use local representatives or a Governing Agency Predictability display board or snail mail to inform people about the program. The total process of the program is not transparent, accountable or Decision Transparency Participation Resources predictable. Bureaucratic Model: This model develops Accountability when people s participation level remains at Local People Stage 2 or the consultation stage. Governing Fig-2: Diagram of Power Model people and use the resources of the people, but do not share power with them, to make decisions and/or policy. The participation is not enough to allow the agencies, in this model, consult with the Governing Agency Predictability people to know all about the resources, and that leaves scope for corruption in this model. A public Decision Transparency Participation Resource meeting is usually conducted for consultation. People are treated as customers or clients by the authority as they do not share the whole process of Accountability Local People Fig-3: Diagram of Bureaucratic Model development implementation. The process of the program, in this model, is less transparent and less predictable, despite the governing agency remaining accountable to the top authority though not to the people. 8

9 Governing Agency Predictability Political Model: This model evolves when the participation level reaches the stage of involvement. In this model, the governing agency Transparency Participation shares the knowledge, resources and authority with the local people in order to make decisions to implement the project. Moreover, in this model, Accountability People People People People People Fig-4: Diagram of Political Model people and agency jointly form a kind of coalition where both sides share histories, rituals, values and other common interests, and establish a more cooperative network to develop any program. But, people can be engaged with the development programs fractionally, and that can evolve conflicts. People are treated as partner, player or as contingent in this model, but the building of trust between the agency and the local people may remain weak because of the segmented network that has evolved. Predictability, transparency, and accountability are high in this model, as far as some people are conceived, but not for the community as a whole. Democratic Model: This model emerges gradually as people s participation attains the stage of empowerment. This model allows developing a partnership with people, delegating authority to make decisions and implementing programs with the sharing of local knowledge, resources and values. This model allows participatory planning and strategic Predictability decision making, which facilitate the development of a common vision, articulation of Transparency Participation needs, effective, efficient and transparent management that facilitate a joint working Accountability environment. Transparency, accountability and predictability are fairly high in this model. Finally, this is the most rational model when Fig-5: Diagram of Democratic Model people are considered as stewards or navigators. But, authorities need to be flexible and open to encourage the development of this model. 9

10 As today s agencies are following the consulting or involving stages of participation (Shand and Arnberg, 1996), this means that they are following a bureaucratic or political model of governance. The democratic model in this milieu is difficult but not impossible to achieve if this trend can be sustained. The only important issue for the democratic governments and agencies is that they should look after the practice of democracy in development implementation. But this is what is barely happening in most cases, because practically, a wide gulf exists between the expectations associated with democratic theory and the practice of democracy in community governance (Gibson, Lacy and Dougherty, 2005:1). Linkage between People s Participation, Participating Instruments and Good Governance: The review of the literature on people s participation, to conceptualize its role in good governance, hence has revealed that stages of participation, models of governance and participating instruments are mutually interlinked. For different qualities of governance, an agency needs different levels of participation and different types of participating tools, which can be summed up in the following table: Stage of Participation (IAP2 2003; modified) Stage-1: Informing- a one-way process, when the governing agency tells people about their decision before or during implementation of development programs. Stage- 2: Consulting- a two-way communication, but engagement of people is limited within the decision making of the program. Governing agency is used to inform people to get feedback but makes decision and implements unilaterally. Model of Governance (Gibson, Lacy and Dougherty 2005; modified) Power Model: in this model a decision comes from the top and is implemented mostly by bureaucrats. Total process of program is not transparent, accountable and predictable. Bureaucratic Model: in this model people s participation is not enough to ensure the transfer of power. The process of program is less transparent and less predictable, and the agency remains accountable to the top not to the people. Instruments for engagement (Robinson, 2002; Bishop and Davis, 2002) Letter mail out, Local press column, Information night, Awareness campaign, Focus groups, Newsletter, Displays. Survey, Seminar, Exhibition and comments, Key contacts, Interest group meetings, Discussion papers, Public hearings, Public meetings 10

11 Stage- 3: Involving- at this stage Political Model: in this model Community advisory governing agency not only listens to people to make decision, but also engages people for budget distribution and implements the program together. Usually the whole community does not get the scope to be engaged in this process. people s participation is enough, but people are engaged in the development programs in different segments that may evolve conflicts. Governing agency is transparent and accountable to a group of people but not to the whole community. committee, Stakeholder consultation, Deliberative poll, Advisory boards, Policy community forum, Public inquiries. Stage-4: Empowering- at this Democratic Model: this model Deliberative forum, stage the governing agency allows developing the capacity of people to come with their decisions and allows developing partnerships with people, delegate authority to make decisions and implements program Citizen jury, Community parliaments, Electronic voting, Referendum. resources to implement with the sharing of local development programs jointly. knowledge. Total process of the Agency works as a facilitator. program is highly transparent, accountable and predictable. Table 2: Relation of people s participation and participating instruments with good governance. Conclusion: Around the developed and developing world, a number of initiatives are being taken to make people s participation effective in achieving an ideal model of good governance. But neither the donor agencies nor the recipient governing agencies are fully aware about the present level of governance. Therefore, they are unable to set a clear target for achieving a better level of good governance. This study suggests that governing agencies can do much to empower local people to achieve a Democratic model of governance that actually is true democracy. While, presently, most governing agencies remain in the Bureaucratic or in the Political model of governance, the Democratic model is the final goal for all. Hopefully, in future we will find Democratic models of good governance all over the central and local governments. Only time will tell. 11

12 References: Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Planning Association 35(4): Azmat F (2007) Good Governance and Market-Based Reforms- A Study of Bangladesh. A Research Thesis, International Centre for Management in Government, Monash University, Melbourne. Besancon M (2003) Good Governance Ranking: the art of Measurements, World Bank, WPF Reports, no 36. Bishop P and Davis G (2002) Mapping public participation in policy choices, Australian Journal of Public Administration 61(1): Box RC (1998) Citizen Governance: Leading American Communities into the 21 st Century, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bureekul T (2000) Public participation in environmental management in Thailand, in Manowong E and Ogunlana SO (2006) Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 13 (4) : Caddy J (2001) Why citizens are central to good governance, Public Management Service (PUMA), OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), accessed at on 10 April Carley M (2006) Partnership and statutory local governance in a devolved Scotland, International Journal of Public Sector Management 19(3): Geddes M (2005) International perspectives and policy issues, in Smyth P, Reddel T and Jones A (Eds.) Community and local governance in Australia, pp13-34, University of New South Wales Press Ltd. Gibson PD, Lacy DP and Dougherty MJ (2005) Improving performance and accountability in local government with citizen participation, The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal 10(1): Gurung SM (2000) Good governance, participation, gender and disadvantaged groups, Available in: accessed on 05 April Hye HA (2000) Good Governance: A Social Contract for the New Millennium, in Hye HA (Ed.) Governance- South Asian Perspectives, The University Press Limited, Dhaka. IAP2 (International participation for public participation) (2003) Core values for the practice of public participation, Foundations of Public Participation, Denver, CO, available at: Accessed on: 29April Innes JE and Booher DE (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21 st Planning Theory and Practic, 5(4): century, Kaufmann D, Kraay A. and Lobaton P (1999) Governance Matters, World Bank, Washington D.C. Kaufmaan D, Kraay A and Mastruzzi M (2003) Governance Matters III: Governance Indicators for , World Bank, Washington D.C. Langlands A (2004) The Good Governance Standards for Public Services, Office for Public Management Ltd, London, accessed at: on 04 June

13 Local Government Association (2007) Local Government Association of SA, Available at: Accessed on: 20 May Manowong E and Ogunlana SO (2006) Public hearing in Thailand s infrastructure projects: effective participations, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 13(4): Minogue M (1997) The principles and Practices of Good Governance, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, British Council. Mumpower JL (2001) Selecting and evaluation tools and methods for public participation, International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 1(2): OECD (2000) Engaging Citizens, Accessed on: 21 May Olson M (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Cambridge University Press. Pateman C (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rahman A (2005) Effective participation: Community engagement in participatory budgeting in Bangladesh, paper presented in International conference on engaging communities, Brisbane, Australia, Accessed on: 30 April Rahman MM (2006) Good governance in Bangladesh: a theoretical discourse, Journal of Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies 26(1): Roberts N (2004) Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation, American Review of Public Administration 34(4): Santiso C (2001) Good governance and Aid Effectiveness: The World Bank and Conditionality, The Georgetown Public Policy Review 7(1):1-22 Sarker AE (2003) The illusion of decentralization: evidence from Bangladesh, International Journal of Public Sector Management. 16 (7): Shand D and Arnberg M (1996) Responsive Government: Service Quality Initiatives, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris. Shelley MR (1999) Governance and public Administration: Meeting the Challenges of the new Millennium, Administration and Management 6(1): Shepherd A (2000) Governance, good government and poverty reduction, International Review of Administrative Sciences 66 (2): Siroros P (2002) Public Hearing, Conflict Resolution and Enhancing Participatory Management between Government and People: Experiences from the West and Proposal to Practice in Thai Society, Thammasat University, Bangkok. Thomas JC (1993) Public involvement and governmental effectiveness: A decision making model for public managers, Administrative Science and Society 24(4):

14 Turner M and Hulme D (1997) Governance, Administration and Development: Making the State Work, Macmillan Press Limited, London, p. 230 UNDP (1997), Good governance characters: Re-conceptualizing Governance, UNDP, presented as: Issue Paper on: Urban Governance: Global Vision and Local Needs - Assessment, Analysis & Action By City Governments, ESCAP, accessed at on 14 April UNDP (2006), Governance for the future: democracy and development in the least developed countries, accessed at on: 20 April Vroom V and Yetton P (1973) Leadership and decision making, University of Pittsburgh Press. Wilcox D (1994) The Guide to Effective Participation, Partnership Books, Delta Press, Brighton. World Bank (2003) Indicators by World Bank Research Called Best Measure of Quality of Governance, Press Release 9 July 2003, Washington. 14