Resources

This research examines the conduct and consequences of the use of participatory rural appraisal techniques in four rural development projects in The Gambia. It includes a review of literature on PRA and the identification of a series of themes that allow for an assessment of PRAÆs usefulness. The fieldwork in The Gambia included reviews of project documentation, key informant interviews, and periods of village-based research using PRA methods. The main research findings were that PRA has had some positive effects, particularly in motivating rural development workers, and generating a spirit of enquiry. There are a number of concerns, however: whether these can be maintained over the longer term; data quality, cost-effectiveness and high transaction costs of PRA use; the idealisation of the nature of æcommunityÆ and a bias towards the literate; little evidence that PRA is effective in empowering the poor or challenging long-term power relations. The main policy implications that arise from this are, firstly, although methodological instruments like PRA have some potential for capacity building in development organisations and communities, institutional structures and relationships are likely to be more important. Secondly, practitioners need to acknowledge the limitations of PRA as an analytical tool as its capacity to relate norms and values to other variables in the social system appears very limited. Thirdly, PRA can help engender greater community participation in development, but it is necessary to guard against the substitution of tools and methods for more concerted efforts at changing social relationships.

Part 1 (1997): If development means good change, questions arise about what is good, and what sorts of change matter. Answers can be personally defined and redefined. The changing words, meanings and concepts of development discourse both reflect and influence what is done. The realities of the powerful tend to dominate. Drawing on experience with participatory approaches and methods which enable poor and marginalised people to express their realities, responsible well-being is proposed as a central concept for a development agenda. This links with capabilities and livelihoods, and is based on equity and sustainability as principles. The primacy of personal actions and non-actions in development points to the need for a pedagogy for the non- oppressed. This includes self-critical awareness, thinking through the effects of actions, and enabling those with power and wealth to experience being better off with less. Others are invited and encouraged to reflect, improve on this analysis, and write their own agenda.|Part 2 (2004): Since 1997, the polarisation of power and wealth in the world has become even more extreme. The personal dimension is central in mediating every big issue but continues to be relatively neglected. Words and concepts used in development have remained potent. Social capital and sustainable livelihoods have met needs in powerful organisations and have been widely adopted and influential. Responsible well-being, pointing to individual agency, has languished at the same time as the scope for action and impact has been enhanced by growing interconnectedness. The methodologies proposed earlier are needed more than ever. So are new lines of thinking: to complement rights of the poorer and weaker with obligations of the richer and more powerful, worldwide and between all levels; to recognise power and relationships as central issues; to integrate institutional and personal change; to ground pro-poor policies and practice in realism; to think for oneself and take responsibility; to choose words and identify priorities personally; and to seek guidance by reflecting on what a poor person would wish one to do.|Author's summary

In the last few years, there has been growing talk amongst development actors and agencies about a rights-based approach to development. Yet what exactly this consists of remains unclear. For some, its grounding in human rights legislation makes such an approach distinctive, lending it the promise of re-politicising areas of development work that have become domesticated as they have been mainstreamed by powerful institutions like the World Bank. Others complain that like other fashions it has become the latest designer item to be seen to be wearing and has been used to dress up the same old development.|

This paper seeks to unravel some of the tangled threads of contemporary rights talk. Where is today's rights-based discourse coming from? Why rights and why now? What are the differences between versions and emphases articulated by different international development actors? What are their shortcomings, and what do these imply for the practice and politics of development? Reflecting on these questions, we explore some of the implications of the range of different ways of relating human rights to development. We argue that ultimately, however it is operationalised, a rights-based approach would mean little if it has no potential to achieve a positive transformation of power relations among the various development actors. Thus, however any agency articulates its vision for a rights-based approach, it must be interrogated for the extent to which it enables those whose lives are affected the most to articulate their priorities and claim genuine accountability from development agencies, and also the extent to which the agencies become critically self-aware and address inherent power inequalities in their interaction with those people.

This publication reports on development, outcomes and experiences of the Mexican Regional Sustainable Development Programme (PRODERS) developed and implemented by the Mexican ministry of environment, natural resources and fisheries between 1996 and 2000. This programme was designed as the anchor point for MexicoÆs sustainable development policy, and was founded on the principles of participation, decentralisation and integrated development. Participatory policy analysis was used to understand the successes and shortcomings of institutionalising participatory approaches in government and civil society organisations working at the local, regional and national level. While PRODERS failed to live up to expectations, the experience raises some interesting lessons that implementing a national public policy of sustainable development and participation: implementation at the regional level helps create visions and alliances, as well as spaces for regional debate and planning; strategies for coordinating different departments and ministries for integrated and inter-sectoral institutional activities are essential; efforts must be made to change the attitudes and behaviour of those responsible within public and social sector institutions; the personal experiences and background of the team involved in policy-making, institutional change or organisational learning are critical: field-based, participatory practical experience is indispensable; and the different scales of decision-making and management must be linked and anchored at the regional level; and community transformation needs to be linked with an institution at the regional level for decision-making and management, set within a framework of national coordination.