Community John Abbott

participation and
its relationship
to Community
Development

ABSTRACT The objective of this paper is to define the relationship between

community participation and community development. The paper illustrates the weak-
ness of existing interpretations, arguing that they areflawedbecause they concentrate
on the failings of community development without analysing why successful com-
munity development succeeds. The paper concludes that community development is
actually a specific form of community participation, the success of which is deter-
mined by two key factors: firstly, the role of the state; and secondly, the complexity
of the decision-making taking place at the core of the community participation
process.

Introduction
From a situation in the 1950s where community development was perceived
to be synonymous with community participation, the situation has now
changed to one in which there appears to be no clear understanding of the
relationship between the two. Instead, the literature on this topic shows the
emergence of three conflicting strands of thought. In the first, community
development is superseded by a more appropriate form of community parti-
cipation (de Kadt, 1982). In the second, it is still the view that "community
development and community participation are basically the same [but that]
community development has gone out of fashion and been re-invented as
community participation" (Sheng, 1990:57). The third strand is that
wherein community development is recognised as a form of participation,
but there are different, and contradictory, views of its application (eg. Jones
and Wiggle, 1987; Ekong and Sekoya, 1982; Waseem, 1982).
This paper explores these three strands, as they appear in the literature,
and analyses the reasons for the differences. By identifying elements in the
wider environment which are associated with successful community develop-
ment projects, a more coherent relationship between community develop-
ment and community participation is established.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. 2 April 1995 pp.158-168
 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 159

The paradigm-approach model of community

participation
The historical interpretation of community participation in the literature
has located it within a paradigm of economic development. This is based
on the belief that the need for community participation "stems from the
failure of conventional economic models of post-war years to benefit the
majority of the third world's population" (Marsden and Oakley, 1982:187).
The increasing discontent with these "modernisation" economic develop-
ment strategies led to a "search for more appropriate styles of development,
fundamentally linked to what has been termed "dependency theory" (Oakley
and Marsden, 1984:7).
ORIGINAL superseded NEW
LINKAGE by LINKAGE

PARADIGM : MODERNISATION DEPENDENCY

THEORY THEORY

APPROACH :
t
COMMUNITY
t
DEVELOPMENT EMPOWERMENT

Figure 1 The paradigm-approach model of community participation

At a community level there was a separation of community participation

into two distinct approaches, (i) the community development movement
and (ii) community involvement through conscientisacion1 (De Kadt,
1982:573), with the latter replaced in time by the english term
"empowerment"2. The economic paradigm formed the wider surround
within which a particular approach to community participation operated
(Oakley and Marsden, 1984 and Moser, 1983). This interpretation of the
relationship between a paradigm of economic development, which is illus-
trated in Figure 1, strongly influenced thinking on community participation,
for it implied that, just as in the wider economic surround the dependency
paradigm superseded the modernisation paradigm, so at the community
level empowerment superseded community development. With hindsight,
this concept can be seen to have been damaging to the credibility of commun-
ity development as a form of community participation (Abbott, 1993).
1. The philosophy of conscientisacion can be found in works by Freire (see for example Freire,
1972). The basis of conscientisacion, according to De Kadt, started from "the existence of socio-
economic inequalities, the generation of these by the economic system, and their underpinning
by the state" (De Kadt, 1982:574), from which "the poor and exploited needed to be helped to
become conscious of their situation" (De Kadt, 1982:574).
2. Empowerment is defined as representing "the organised efforts of dis-empowered groups to
increase control over resources and regulative institutions" (UNRISD, 1979:8).
160 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. 2 1995

The failings of Community Development

In the 1950s "the United Nations identified community development as
synonymous with community participation" (Moser, 1989:81), in which
capacity it was envisaged to be a "process designed to create conditions of
economic and social progress for the whole community with its active
participation" (United Nations definition quoted in Moser, 1989:81). This
was an ambitious objective and, with hindsight, it is clear that such high
expectations would be difficult, if not impossible to meet. This proved to
be the case. The result was the application of a form of participation which
was inappropriate to the needs of the communities at that time.
Gilbert and Ward state that "In preparation for the eventual independence
of its African and Indian colonies the British employed community develop-
ment as a method of encouraging the growth of political democracy and
local initiative" (Gilbert and Ward, 1984:771). However it became seen by
many parties, particularly those struggling for independence, as "quite expli-
citly an attempt to create plausibly democratic institutions without serious
dislocation to the vested interests of the status quo" (Mayo, 1975:131). In
some areas it became used "as a tool for neo-colonial expansion" (Marsden
and Oakley, 1982:186), whilst in others "the primary motivation was to
promote political democracy and the integration of the poor into society
[not as a worthwhile objective in itself but] in order to counteract the spread
of communism" (Gilbert and Ward, 1984:771).
The problem of using community development as a tool of policy without
a clear understanding of its own internal dynamic meant that "the commun-
ity development process itself was open to abuse, either through co-option
by privileged groups, or through destruction by those same groups, to whom
it posed a threat" (Allibrand, 1982:141, quoting Holdcroft). Community
development "hardly ever faced up to the differences in interest that could
exist between different members of the 'community' that was to be
'developed' [while] community developers... disregarded inequality, conflict
and power relations" (De Kadt, 1982:572-4). In other words, the commun-
ity development process was never contextualised. As a result community
development was perceived as a form of manipulation, and associated with
the discredited economic development strategy of first world governments
and international lending agencies, known as modernisation theory.
This interpretation created a paradox. If community development had
failed, and community development and community participation were
synonymous, then community participation had failed. To resolve this com-
munity development and community participation had to be de-linked. The
United Nations recognised that "the major weakness of community parti-
cipation lay in its emphasis on mobilisation rather than participation...
Community groups have rarely been given the power to choose how they
should be involved" (Gilbert and Ward, 1984:771). This provided the key
to de-linking. It was the specific approach to participation, constituted as
 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 161

community development, which was considered the cause for this failure to
achieve economic and social progress, rather than the principle of commun-
ity participation itself. This laid the foundation for a new, "more appro-
priate" approach to community participation, based upon the concept of
community power and control.

The problems with the recognised view of

community development
The work done comparing community development and empowerment
in developing countries has one major flaw. It concentrates on the failings
of community development and the way in which empowerment addressed
these. If this is really the case, and if community development has been
superseded by empowerment, then there should be evidence of a gradually
diminishing role for community development. In practice the converse is
true. There is strong evidence that community development is still being
practiced successfully and, furthermore, is growing in popularity.
In developed countries community development has evolved and retains
not only its identity but also its relevance as a primary vehicle through
which social change is enacted at a local level. The strength of community
development in this regard can be seen from the wide range of papers on
the topic, which (a) debate the relevance of community development (eg
Vasoo, 1991 and Wells, 1991, on community development in the United
States and Taylor, 1991, on community development and the European
Community); (b) highlight the fact that academic departments of commun-
ity development continue to exist in many developed~countries; and (c)
indicate that both institutions and programmes are expanding in countries
such as diverse as Australia (Jones, 1992) and Hungary (Varga and
Vecseg, 1992).
But this is not the only contradiction. In the past ten years there has been
increasing evidence of a resurgence of interest in, and support for, commun-
ity development projects in developing countries. This evidence indicates
that the application of community development to developing countries can
be effective under specific circumstances. Based upon their work in India,
for example, Jones and Wiggle strongly support the community development
approach, but within a specific context, in this case a rural/village situation.
Here, they argue that "with a high level of political support, [community
development] could become the major agency for social and economic
development" (Jones and Wiggle, 1987:107). This optimistic view is itself
based upon firm evidence of success, clearly illustrated by Midwinter when
he states that "Community development has a superb record globally of
highly successful projects" (Midwinter, 1992:285). This is further supported
by Nigerian case studies (Ekong and Sekoya, 1982; Kolawole 1982) which
reflect the success of community development as an approach to improving
quality of life, in meeting specific, clearly-defined goals.
162 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. 2 1995

This recognised success of participation in the context of developing

countries challenges the view that community development has been super-
seded. At the same time the criticisms of community development levelled
earlier are valid. What this apparent contradiction indicates is the need to
differentiate between the idea that community development somehow failed
the communities in developing countries, as implied by paradigm-approach
model, and that it is inappropriate in specific situations. This distinction
identifies the surround as being the critical factor which influences, and
possibly even determines, the success of community development. To under-
stand why this is so it is necessary to return briefly to the roots of community
development.

Developing an alternative hypothesis for community

development
Stohr (1981) states that community development had its roots in the
United Kingdom and the United States, where there was a need to assist
with the social needs of the urban poor in the industrialising cities. These
roots were in community work which "in its modern sense in Britain was
begun in the nineteenth century by upper- and middle-class idealists and
reformers who sought to ameliorate the often appalling conditions under
which working-class people lived in the new industrial towns" (Batten,
1967:9). From these roots the practice of community development grew,
particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States, into a clearly
defined subject area forming a sub-discipline of Social Work. Given this
academic respectability, it was assumed by many people to be of universal
applicability. Thus Warren states that "community development is a widely
applied method of bringing about social change that extends beyond the
United States" (Warren, 1970:32).
It is this sweeping assumption which is the root cause of the contradictions
described earlier. In practice, there was a serious problem in making the
transition to developing countries. Unfortunately, the existing literature did
not analyse the reasons for this translocation failure. Instead it looked at
the economic context and created the paradigm-approach linkage. The real
problem that should be addressed is why the translocation failed; why
exactly is community development successful in some situations and not in
others? To achieve this it is necessary to look first at the successful projects
and identify why they are successful. Only then can the failed projects can
analysed effectively.
In an analysis of projects using both community development and
empowerment approaches to community participation, Abbott (1993) iden-
tified specific characteristics which appeared to be associated with the suc-
cessful application of the respective approaches. These characteristics were
associated with the wider environment within which the community operated
and could be divided into two broad categories. The first category related
 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 163

to the role of government and the second category to the complexity of the
decision-making process which pertained to a specific project.

Characteristics of the environment: openness of

government
Conventional theory situates empowerment at the end of a continuum of
increasing community involvement (Arnstein, 1969; Oakley and Marsden,
1984; Moser, 1989). However, this view is not compatible with experience.
In Latin America, the major arena of empowerment struggles, empowerment
seeks to operate outside "the system", confronting the state and demanding
increased autonomy. The environment in which this occurs is characterised
by authoritarian, and often oppressive regimes which refuse to tolerate any
involvement by local communities in the decision-making process. Here the
government may be described as closed (Abbott, 1993).
This radical approach to power is significantly different to the notion of
an evolutionary continuum, which is based upon a fundamental assumption
that the government in question is open, i.e. that it accepts the right of
people to be involved in the decision-making process. This is the arena
within which community development operates. The problem is that there
are many degrees of openness. Waseem argues that "government sponsored
programmes contain in-built mechanisms which enhance the cooption of
initiatives and further the interests of members of the bureaucracy who
support them" (Waseem, 1982:233). This reflects a paternalistic, manipulat-
ive approach, which is the lowest degree of openness. It can function
effectively in situations where the need of communities is very great, gener-
ally at the level of basic needs provision. However, this is also an unstable
environment, which is often characterised by weak and insecure government.
There is always a danger that this condition can easily become a closed
environment, particularly if the government feels threatened politically.
There are many types of supportive government involvement, which are
appropriate to different situations (Constantino-David, 1982; Ekong and
Sekoya, 1982; Kolawole, 1982). These range from direct involvement,
through to the situation where government limits its role to the provision
of a legislative framework with minimum of executive involvement.
Community development projects operate successfully when the degree of
government involvement and the needs of a particular community are in
balance. But to recognise when this situation occurs, community develop-
ment workers need to understand a second condition which determines the
appropriateness of community development.

Characteristics of the environment: complexity of

the decision-making process
There are three set of indicators which describe project complexity, the
first relates to the nature of the project, or problem, itself; the second to
164 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. 2 1995

the internal community dynamic; and the third to the interaction of the
community project with the wider environment.
(i) the nature of the project. Historically, successful community development
projects have been built around predominantly social issues to which
people in a community relate easily. Thus Srinivasan, for example,
emphasises the importance of training sessions being designed so as to
simulate a community level process as closely as possible (Srinivasan,
1993:35). Where other components are introduced into the decision-
making process, e.g. the use of technology, these are introduced in a
way which fits them to this framework. This is the basis for the concept
of "intermediate" or "appropriate" technologies. Finally there is the
technique of reducing a multi-variable problem, e.g. environmental
health, down to its component parts, eg. not drinking polluted water;
giving proper weaning foods etc.
(ii) the community dynamic. Smit argues that "the notion of a community
is always something of a myth. A community implies a coherent entity
with a clear identity and a commonality of purpose. The reality is that
communities, more often than not, are made up of an agglomeration
of factions and interest groups often locked in competitive relation-
ships" (Smit, 1990:1). Successful community development projects over-
come the problems associated with community heterogeneity by their
focus on small groups which are brought together through common
interest. In this way small group work can be a successful vehicle for
acceptance of a project within the wider community,
(iii) the interaction between the community project and the wider environment.
Community development is strongly focussed upon the needs of the
community while functioning within a government framework.
Empowerment sees the relationship between the two as confrontational.
In both cases, when other actors are involved, it is assumed that they
are (a) secondary; and (b) subservient to either government or com-
munity. Increasingly this assumption is invalid. Many community pro-
jects impinge upon wider national, or even international, needs (e.g.
wildlife conservation programmes). In these situations it becomes
necessary to incorporate other actors, with their own needs and agen-
das, into the decision-making process.

Defining the role of Community Development

This explanation of the environment enables community development to
be seen in a wider context, illustrated in Figure 2, which shows what happens
as the degree of openness of government changes. Manipulation can be seen
as the minimalist form of community involvement which exists in the region
between an open and a closed government. If the government is threatened
or insecure, then it becomes increasingly closed to the concept of community
 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 165

GOVERNMENT CLOSED GOVERNMENT OPEN

increasing
arena of consensus
complexity
decision-making
of projects

arena of
empowerment arena of successful
struggles community development

confrontation manipulation community control

increasing openness of government to the
involvement of communities in decision-making

Figure 2 Siting community development within the wider participation environment

involvement in the decision-making process. In this environment the only

way for a community to achieve change is to confront and challenge the
government. Thus there is a rapid transition from manipulation to an
empowerment struggle.
On the other side a government can become more open, in which case it
delegates power and progressively withdraws itself from direct involvement
in the decision-making process. This leads ultimately to a high degree of
autonomy, as may be practiced for example by housing or agricultural
co-operatives. The boundaries of responsibility have been drawn by legisla-
tion and within these boundaries the groups in question are virtually auto-
nomous. However this type of community control is significantly different
from the control obtained in an empowerment struggle. Community control
is negotiated and the form of control is more stable.
As the decision-making process becomes more complex, this introduces
a new variable into the community participation process. Communities do
not have the sophisticated support systems necessary to manage complex
projects. At the same time, governments need to be much more open than
they would need to be with a less complex project, particularly insofar as
access to information is concerned. The outcome of increasing openness in
conjunction with increasing complexity is a move along a continuum which
leads into a new realm of decision-making. This is based increasingly on
consensus rather than outright community control.
Community development operates successfully within the specific envel-
ope shown on Figure 2. It can only operate within an environment where
the government is open to community involvement in the decision-making
process. At the same time it is also constrained by the complexity of that
process. Once these constraints are recognised, then it becomes possible to
166 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. 2 1995

determine the applicability or otherwise of community development as the

most appropriate form of community participation for a given situation.

Conclusions
In terms of the three strands of thought about the nature of community
development this paper has shown that it is a distinct form of community
participation. However, if community development is to improve upon its
success as a recognised and valid approach to community participation,
then it is important to understand what makes a successful project and how
the conditions might be replicated. Equally it is important to understand
why community development fails. The paper has shown the distinction
between the concept of community development failing, and community
development being applied inappropriately.
Different forms of community participation are appropriate under differ-
ent circumstances, and community development is one of these forms of
participation. Its appropriateness is determined by two factors in the wider
environment. The first and most critical is the openness of government to
the involvement of communities in the decision-making process. For com-
munity development to function, government must be open. However this
alone is insufficient to determine whether community development will
succeed. The effectiveness of community development is also constrained
by the complexity of the decision-making process. Thus community develop-
ment becomes less effective as a vehicle for involving communities in
decision-making as the complexity of the decision-making process increases.
Community development is an important form of community participation
but if it is to develop further there needs to be a greater understanding of
the external factors which inhibit its effectiveness.

John Abbott is a civil engineer who practices as an international consultant in

urban development and community participation.
Contact address: The Cottage, The Old Hill, Old Sodbury, Bristol, BS17 6NA

Bibliography
Abbott, J., (1993), "The theory and practice of community participation in the
provision of urban infrastructure", PhD thesis (unpublished), University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Alliband, T., (1982), "Some Uses of Science in Community Development",
Community Development Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 141-146.
Arnstein, S. R., (1969), "A ladder of citizen participation", Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, Vol. XXXV, No. 4, pp. 216-224.
Batten, T. R., (1967), The non-directive approach in group and community work,
(Third impression 1975), Oxford University Press, London.
 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 167

De Kadt, E., (1982), "Community Participation for Health: The case of Latin
America", World Development, Vol. 10, No. 7, pp. 573-584.
Ekong, E. E. and Sokoya, K. L., (1982), "Success and Failure in Rural Community
Development Efforts: A study of two cases in Southwestern Nigeria", Community
Development Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 217-224.
Gilbert, A. & Ward, P., (1984a), "Community Action by the Urban poor:
Democratic Involvement, Community Self-help or a Means of Social Control",
World Development, Vol. 12, No. 8, pp. 769-782.
Jones, A., (1992), "Community development training - A comparative approach",
Community Development Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 199-210.
Jones, J. & Wiggle, I., (1987), "The concept and Politics of'Integrated Community
Development'" Community Development Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 107-117.
Kolawole, A., (1982), "The role of Grassroots Participation in National
Development: Lessons from the Kwara State of Nigeria", Community Development
Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 121-133.
Marsden, D. & Oakley, P., (1982), "Editorial Introduction", Community
Development Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 186-189.
Mayo, M., (1975), "Community Development: a radical alternative", in R. Bailey
and M. Brake (eds.), Radical Social Work, Edward Arnold, London, pp. 129-143.
Midwinter, E., (1992), "Old Age and Community Development", Community
Development Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 285-289.
Moser, C. O. N., (1983), "The problem of evaluating community participation in
urban development" C. Moser (ed.) Evaluating Community Participation in Urban
Development Projects, London: Development Planning Unit Working Paper
No. 14, pp. 3-11.
Moser, C. O. N., (1989), "Community Participation in Urban Projects in the Third
World", Progress in Planning, Vol. 32, Part 2.
Nkunika, A. I. Z., (1987), "The role of popular participation in programmes of
social development", Journal of Social Development in Africa, Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp. 17-28.
Oakley, P. and Marsden, D., (1984), Approaches to Participation in Rural
Development, ILO, Geneva.
Sanders, I. T., (1970), "The Concept of Community Development", in L. J. Cary
(ed), Community Development as a Process, University of Missouri Press,
Columbia, pp. 9-31.
Sheng, Y. K., (1990), "Community Participation in Low-Income Housing Projects:
problems and prospects", Community Development Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 56-65.
Smit, D., (1990), "Community Participation: Some Realities", Seminar on community
participation in service provision for township development, University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Srinivasan, L., (1992), Options for Educators - A Monograph for Decision Makers
on Alternative Participatory Strategies", PACT/CDS, New York.
Srinivasan, L., (1993), Tools for Community Participation - A Manual for Training
Trainers in Participatory Techniques", Prowess/UNDP, Washington.
168 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. 2 1995

Stohr, W. B., (1981), "Development from Below: the Bottom-Up Periphery-Inward

Development Paradigm", in W. B. Stohr and D. R. F. Taylor (eds.), Development
from Above or Below? Wiley Series, Chichester.
Taylor, M., (1991), "Community Development and the European Community:
Editorial Introduction", Community Development Journal, Vol. 26, No. 2, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 81-84.
Varga, T. A. and Vercseg, I., (1992), "An experiment in community development in
the Bakony, Hungary", Community Development Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 50-59.
Vasoo, S., (1991), "Grass-Root Mobilisation and Citizen Participation: Issues and
Challenges" Community Development Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp. 1-7.
Warren, R. L., (1970), "The Context of Community Development", in L. J. Cary
(ed), Community Development as a Process, University of Missouri Press,
Columbia, pp. 32-52.
Waseem, M., (1982), "Local Power Structures and the Relevance of Rural
Development Strategies: A case study of Pakistan", Community Development
Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 225-233.
Wells, L. B., (1991), "New Approaches to Community Participation in the Midwest
United States", Community Development Journal, Vol.26, No. 1, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 24-27.