Participation and power
Improvements in services, changes in who holds power, and people’s own experience of influence can move differently. A programme can provide useful infrastructure without changing authority. A democratic process can also have value even where its effects on income are unclear.
Who can shape the agenda, influence a decision and challenge the people exercising authority?
Our working hypothesis is that meaningful agency requires usable power, supported by resources and relationships. That is a proposition to investigate.
What the evidence suggests
Better services do not automatically mean greater voice. A randomised study of community-driven development in 236 villages in Sierra Leone found improvements in public goods in the short term, without fundamental changes in local decision-making. Women’s attendance did not translate into greater subsequent voice in community meetings. Read the J-PAL evaluation summary.
Influence over budgets is a promising area to examine. Research on Brazilian municipalities during 1990–2004 reports greater spending on health and sanitation alongside lower infant mortality where participatory budgeting was used. We have reviewed the abstract; a full assessment of its methods is needed before making stronger causal claims. Read the paper abstract.
The design of participation matters. The OECD’s comparative work on deliberative processes identifies representative recruitment, support for participation, access to evidence and a public commitment to respond as important design principles. This does not establish that every assembly improves policy. Read the OECD report summary.
Local power needs scrutiny too. Mansuri and Rao’s review of participatory development places context, elite control and the role of the state at the centre of the question. Moving decisions closer to people does not by itself resolve inequalities within a community. Read the World Bank publication summary.
When did you actually have a say?
Our proposed first original study would explore concrete experiences of influencing decisions. We want people with experience of local decision-making, community ownership and community-led responses to help shape it.
- What could you actually change?
- Who decided which options were available?
- What authority or resources came with your involvement?
- Who was excluded, withdrew or disagreed?
- Did your influence last after the project ended?
Contributors should help choose the questions and interpret what we learn. Listening must be able to change the research.
Limits and open questions
This is an initial desk-research exercise, not a systematic review or completed original study. No interviews or public-opinion research have yet been conducted. The full note identifies seven sources, the material reviewed and the limitations of each.
The initial selection is weighted towards English-language academic and multilateral sources. Community-authored accounts and locally produced research must help shape the next stage. We also need to examine failed examples and evidence that challenges our assumptions.
Have an experience, source or objection that belongs in this inquiry?
Contribute to the research