PublicParticipation-A Case Study of Municipalities in Bihar-Shashi

Municipal Budget and Financial
Management Programme
Public Participation
A critical review of public participation in

development planning within Bihar local
governments
Shashikant Nishant Sharma

BP/461/2008 , B.Plan, 2nd year
School of Planning & Architecture
New Delhi-110001
Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi
Executive Summary
Seamless flow of information between communities in the broadest
sense and formal local government and service provision structures is
increasingly a reality of modern governance. Technology, techniques
and mechanisms contribute to participation as never before. This
paper contributes to the understanding of participation in two parts.
The first part roots the debate in an exposition of the theoretical
construct behind the participation idea. The second part addresses
current experience in Bihar local government by discussing and
providing a critique of current practice.
Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 2

Table of Content
Page
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................2
1. Background......................................................................................................................4
2. Community Participation: Origins of the theory and practice in development thinking. 4
Context.........................................................................................................................4
2.2 The origins of participation in theory....................................................................7
2.3 Dominant patterns in participatory approaches.....................................................9
2.4 Towards a differentiated participation model......................................................11
3. Current Municipal experience with participation in Bihar............................................14
3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................14
3.2 Experience with participatory mechanisms and processes..................................16
3.3 Towards a critique of current participation in practice........................................17
4. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................25

1. Background
Contemporary developmental thinking tends to be in vehement
agreement on the topic of public/community participation. The
notion that communities should have a say and be empowered
to exert direct influence in decisions that would impact on their
social, material and environmental well-being is virtually
undisputed in the development and democratisation debate to
the point of becoming accepted as a basic need and democratic
right. No longer the sole domain of radical thinkers; public
participation, it would seem, has become off age. Yet, despite
the wide acceptance of the need for and benefits of participation
in development, the going consensus becomes fuzzier with
regard to the best way to achieve participatory governance in
practice. More often than not, despite good intentions, the
practise of participatory democracy still falls short of its ideals
and expectations. Why does the practical manifestation of public
participation processes so often falter?
A prodigious amount of literature on the theory and practice of

public participation currently exists, offering a plethora of case
studies, best practises and guidelines. This vast literature also
spawned a rich (and sometimes bewildering) lexicon of
theoretical concepts and terminology. This paper attempts to
provide a translation of the theory and praxis on participation to
practitioners so as to built understanding in support of stronger
public/community participation processes.
2. Community Participation: Origins of the

theory and practice in development
thinking
Context
Community expectations from public sector organisations are
undergoing significant changes. In the 1950’s people were more
tolerant of poor services; more patiently waiting in long queues
and enduring inefficient public administration than they are now.
Communities are expecting quality delivery of public services
and are beginning to hold elected representatives increasingly
accountable when their expectations are not met. Before the
2000 municipal election NGO conducted a poll on public
perceptions of local government. This survey found declining

local government opinion levels with only 31% of people

expressing trust in and 30% giving approval of local
performance, with 44% perceiving corruption in their
municipalities. Only 36% of people thought that their
municipalities were responsive to their needs; down from 58% in
1995. The most worrying aspect of this and similar polls
conducted since, is that local government seems to score
consistently lower than provincial and national government,
despite being closer to the people. The call is now for delivery,
but more specifically delivery that is more responsive to and
places greater focus on community satisfaction as communities
become increasingly assertive in demanding and expecting a
range of quality local services.
The pattern of rising expectations of public sector delivery is not

unique to Bihar and indeed strongly influenced domestic
municipal reform initiatives. An international discourse emerged
during the last two decades with regard to government
efficiency, size and cost. A wave of reforms, with increasingly
distinctive styles, themes and interventions, were unleashed
which gradually became collectively known as New Public
Management. The reform agenda since the latter half of the
1980’s were popularised by the Thatcher and Major governments
in the United Kingdom. It however rapidly spread into Australia,
New Zealand, and Scandinavia which all introduced bold reform
programmes. By the early 1990’s the Clinton Administration
introduced broadly similar initiatives in the United States to
address the domestic crisis in public services.
Although many public sector reforms have ideological

underpinnings they mostly respond to a legitimate crisis in the
delivery of public services; i.e. fiscal viability, large scale
inefficiency, societal changes and growing popular dissatisfaction
with bureaucracy. New Public Management type best practices
are now succeeding in large scale public sector improvements
across the globe; from India to Finland, Columbia to Canada,
North and South, Developed and Developing countries.
The main elements of the 1990’s reform agenda can be

summarised as:
o The introduction of quasi and real market competition into

public service delivery;
o Increasing decentralisation in the management and
production of public services;
o Emphasis on improving service quality;

o Reforms to reduce costs and increase efficiency;

o Increasing emphasis on benchmarking and measuring
performance and
o Focus on increased responsiveness to individual needs of
the consumers/customers of public services.
The reforms in Bihar coincided with a public sector reform wave

fanning out across the world. The ills of the state administrative
system were similar to other stale bureaucracies;
mismanagement of resources, outdated management,
unresponsiveness to users, lack of accountability, poor labour
relations etc

Municipalities now are expected to roll out a clear reform agenda

in terms of a suite of municipal legislation addressing:
o Service delivery and clarity of purpose through a general
set of service delivery duties within the system of
government (Constitution and Municipal Systems Act);
o Community participation and accountability (Municipal
Systems Act);
o Integrated planning (Municipal Systems Act); and
o Performance management (Municipal Systems Act).
Yet, almost all municipalities are faced with a dual challenge of

rising community expectations/needs and declining resources. In
many cases cost cutting and revenue enhancing strategies have
reached their limitations as communities increasingly struggle to
afford municipal services and municipalities risking infrastructure
failure through simplistic cost cutting exercises. The time has
come to introduce more sophisticated strategies that aim to
strike a bargain/pact between municipalities and communities on
what services are to be delivered against set standards and
affordable payments. Within such strategies municipalities can
strike a better balance between community expectations and
service affordability while still finding ways of improving
efficiencies and reducing costs. This dialogue will by enlarge
happen through participation.
2.2 The origins of participation in theory
The origins of public participation within the local government

sphere can probably be traced to three root sources:
o Participation as good development project practise:

Participation was first used in the 1950’s by social activists
and project field workers as a necessary dimension of
development. The World Bank, internationally, as well as the
Asian Development Bank have since taken the notion of
participation as a prerequisite for successful project
implementation to heart. It has now become common
practise to include some or the other form of public
participation in the implementation of infrastructure projects
within the local government environment. A large amount of
case studies tend to focus on project specific participation and
it is arguably the most well known participation framework of
reference.

o Participation as good governance: Governance is a term

that refers to the nature of the relationship between the state
and civil society. Participation within the context of good
governance has its origins from within Western democracies
since the 1980’s and 90’s. Falling voter turn-out (the so-
called democratic deficit) and a general sense of
disillusionment with particularly local government resulted in
a rethink in the way civil society can be re-engaged. A
powerful late 1990’s article in The Economist has shown how
voter turnout in almost all Western democracies are
experiencing rapid decline. Bihar, according to pre-election
polls, experiencing the same perception trends, possibly
indicating that the healthy state of participation in local
democracy after 1994 will decline in line with other
democratic societies. The thread presented to democracy
when few bother to vote is self evident. The causes of this
democratic disengagement is varied but commonly based on
perceptions of oppressive, unresponsive and inefficient
bureaucracies, in addition to a sense of powerless and
marginalised local political structures within the state. Strong
links also exist with the crisis of the welfare state in Western
democracies. A common feature of the dramatic public sector
reforms in the developed world in the last decades has been
serious attempts to address what has become known as the
“crisis” in local democracy. Widespread disengagement and
disinterest of key groups and social and economic exclusion
prompted a range of initiatives to re-establish the legitimacy
of local councillors, combat social exclusion and improve
participation in representative democracy. New forms of
democratic participation have been the result, e-governance
and real time polling mechanisms to name a few. It has also
given rise to completely new institutions of governance,
illustrated by the rapid increase of the residential community
association phenomena, increases in community development
corporations and increasing complexity in service delivery
configurations.
o Participation as political empowerment: Originating from

economic development theory and theories of development
the empowerment approach to community participation is
located within the radical paradigm of alternative
development and manifests itself in the mobilisation of
popular political power. With intellectual origins in neo-
Marxist writers this approach locates participation within a
wider political struggle that links the condition of under-
development with access to political power. At the local

government and community interface participation within this

approach manifested itself in dialogical forums where
stakeholder groups with a political empowerment agenda
engages the local state in participation on a wide range of
development issues. The existence of dialogical forums is no
longer as prevalent and dominant as they were prior to 1994,
but still forms the dominant mode of participation in the
preparation of development plans and provides the backdrop
for some types of civic organisations.
These three dominant strands of thinking and approaches to

participation intermingle and sometimes are getting confused in
practical engagement between communities and local
governments. Municipalities, for example often intermingles
participation on a project-based engagement in a similar manner
as consultation in their PLAN IMPLEMENTATION process that falls
more within the good governance realm. The communities with
which they engage often resembles empowerment; that is that
they define the terms of engagement in terms of conflict and
opposition to the local state or ward councillor; using the
participation process as a proxy for political engagement. At
other times communities define their engagement in terms of
cooperation and community management. The key conclusion is
that there is no single universally applicable or perfect model of
participation. It is important to recognise different
circumstances require a different style of participation from
authorities. The trick is to understand the context within which
communities are engaged so as to design the most appropriate
participative mechanism and process.
2.3 Dominant patterns in participatory approaches
A general differentiation can be made three dominant public

sector reform approaches; public choice, post-Fordist reform of
state service delivery and neo-Marxist. Each one of these reform
approaches displays dominant, but not exclusive, characteristics.
Table 1: Dominant participatory approaches

Characteristic Dominant Differentiation
Dominant Public Choice Neo-Marxist
public (New public management
sector paradigm)
reform
paradigm
Dominant Market reform – o Statist reform of traditional o Economic
introduction of bureaucracy developme

reform competition in o Market reform nt model

agenda service provision o Developmental local o Developme
and consumer government ntal
choice governmen
t
Role of Enabler of Pluralism – spreading power Local state as
local service provision within the state (traditional manager of
government normative view of the state) uneven
Service provider – utilitarian development
role and local
dualism
Participatio Citizen as o Citizen as subject Popular
n approach customer o Community benefit mobilisation
o Community partnership
Participator o Market o Dialogical Forums Community
y mode research o Sector-based advisory activation
o Focus group groups
research o Area-based/ constituency
o Opinion polls based advisory structures
Scale Service Provider Traditiona Emerging City/Regional/N
l ational
o Municip o City-wide
ality o Partnership
o Public o NGO
actors o Private
sector
o Communit
y groups
Focus Individual o Community beneficiary of Human scale
consumer public services development
o Social development
stakeholders and partners
Outcome o Service o Good Governance Social equity
efficiency o Legitimacy Social justice
o Customer o Responsiveness
satisfaction o Accountability
o Decentralisation
o Effectiveness
o Social sustainability
Planning o Sector Traditional Emerging
Product strategies Structure
o o City
o Service plans plans Develop
o Business o 5-year plans ment
Plans o MTIEF Strategy
o Capital
Programmes
o Integrated
Development
Plan
Discourse Narrow focus Traditional Emerging Globalisation
Needs based Priority Capitalism
driven

2.4 Towards a differentiated participation model
The characteristics of the most appropriate models are

summarised below:
Model
Characteristic Community Empowerment Negotiated
Development development
Role of Open Closed Open
Government
Nature of Small Political/economic Complex multi
decision- programmes and targeted variable and
making projects with programmes with multi-faceted
clearly clearly defined programmes.
defined/concrete agenda/outputs High level of
and single complexity
outputs
Community Focuses –through Focussed through Diffuse,
dynamic project selection strength of heterogeneous
needs/issue and require level
of moderation
Primary Limited Centred around a Integrated
purpose of dispute between systems
participative community and approach, wide
process government ranging
interaction
Adapted from Abbot 1996
Surrounds of com
omplexity
Source: Abbot 1996
Arena of
Abbot outlines four types of surrounds or contexts, along two
Appropriate app
Arena of
variable
exclusion
Hierarchy of increasing complexity
Source: Abbot 1996
If one takes Abbot’s framework a bit further, by locating typical

participation examples within each approach, the value of his
contribution becomes clearer.
Revolution
Illustrative applica
appr
Arena of Com
Empowerment Deve
exclusion
complexity
The next layer of sophistication of the framework developed by

Abbot is to establish a link with the kind of participation

mechanisms and processes that one would expect within each

participatory approach.
Typical mechan
within particip
ierarchy of increasing complexity
Different approaches to participation therefore exist and are

appropriate for different contexts. Not all participatory
mechanisms serve the reform agendas and desired outcomes of
municipalities equally well. If, for example, the public reform
agenda is to pursue market driven service delivery options, then
dialogical forums are not particularly useful. On the other hand,
if new housing options are considered, affecting specific
stakeholder groupings, dialogical forums may work well.
Environmental policy, again, has a strong sectoral stakeholder
impact. It is of little use to generalize it in a dialogical forum
unless also supported by participation from an environmental
focus group. The point is that there are different approaches to
participation that tend to work; one size does not fit all.
Ward par
Ad hoc system
Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com
meetingsnd
B.Plan. 2 Year. SPA,Delhi 13
3. Current Municipal experience with

participation in Bihar
3.1 Introduction
Public participation is considered one of the key tenets of

democratic governance in Bihar. Municipal councils are obliged
“to develop a culture of municipal governance that shifts from
strict representative government to participatory governance,
and must for this purpose, encourage, and create conditions for
residents, communities and other stakeholders in the
municipality to participate in local affairs”. In addition, the White
Paper on Local Government states that “Local government
structures must develop strategies and mechanisms to
continuously engage with citizen’s, business and community
groups and offers the following options amongst others; focus
group participatory action research to generate detailed
information about a wide range of specific needs and values; and
participatory budget initiatives aimed at linking community
priorities to capital investment programmes”.
The deepening of local democracy in Bihar embedded in wide-

ranging regulative provisions that oblige organs of the state in
general and municipalities in particular to establish mechanisms
and processes for public participation. Municipal legislation
(Municipal Systems and Structures Acts) lays down formal
measures to establish a coherent system of developmental local
governance resting on pillars of community participation,
integrated development planning (plan implementation),
budgeting; and performance management. The preparation of
plan implementation, in particular, has become a mantra to
communities, managers and political representatives at all levels
of government as an all-embracing planning tool which will allow
municipalities to address wide ranging developmental
challenges, through public participation, in a systematic and
sustainable manner. In addition to general provisions for
participation municipalities are also given specific obligations to
consult in a prescribed manner through legislation. The
advertising of the annual tariffs and rates, forming part of the
budget is prescribed. When municipalities are considering
alternative service delivery mechanisms they must consult the
community. Land use planning decisions are commonly
advertised in the press in a prescribed manner. Some decisions
must be advertised for comment and be made available in public

places; etc. In addition extensive use are made of ward

participatory systems in terms of municipal by-laws and
mandated by notices published by the PRDA for local
government.
However, it is only when all the statutory provisions are stripped

away, and the underlying public participation processes and
mechanisms are exposed, that a good impression emerges of the
health of participation.

3.2 Experience with participatory mechanisms and processes
The most common mechanisms in Bihar municipalities relating to

participation are:
o Dialogical forums, plan implementation forums, sector
forums and/or area-based forums. Experience with forums
indicates a variety of organisational set-ups, ranging from
sophisticated constitutions, organised into complex
committee structures and having clear accreditation criteria
for membership; to simple equivalents of town-hall meetings
that is called occasionally;
o Ad hoc meetings, almost all municipalities make use of ad
hoc meetings around specific issues, for example a
controversial town planning application.
o Market research and opinion polls, still somewhat in its
infancy, some of the larger municipalities have conducted
proper stratified and diversified market research on
community priorities;
o Ward participatory structures ,set up through formal state
notices and requiring by-laws, ward participatory systems
exist in many municipalities. In other municipalities informal
versions and configurations of ward participatory systems
functions.
o e-Government, although larger municipalities are actively
beginning to provide on-line service options, very few if any
provides real time on-line voting to gain a measure of public
opinion on issues yet;
o Communication, many municipalities have created
communication capacity within the administration, often
linked to the Mayor’s office, to provide a press liaison and
corporate communication service. Almost all municipalities
make use of the occasional news letter, sometimes producing
glossy publications to reach communities. The use of
community radio and community news paper media are fairly
widespread and even television, on occasion.
o Customer relations and Citizen Charters, driven by the
need to manage expectations and reflect service delivery
accountability municipalities increasingly establish ongoing
customer relations measures. Typical strategies employed by
municipalities include:
o Single window principles (also called one-stop-shops)
where a range of services are combined in one area for
maximum convenience;

o Introduction of self-service facilities and electronic services

such as payment of accounts through the internet;
o Providing e-government services, such as on-line rezonings
and building plan approvals;
o Establishment of help desks where all inquiries can be
lodged through a single portal;
o Increasing the number of service points to maximum
convenience, either by literally locating facilities in more
areas or simply using shops as additional pay points for
municipal accounts;
o Simplification of procedures (Red Tape initiatives) and
supporting people making use of municipal services
through pamphlets and help desks;
o Creating call centres through which inquiries and
complaints can be lodged;
o Introducing single number facilities for emergency
services;
3.3 Towards a critique of current participation in practice
3.3.1 Is participation too strongly associated with the

development planning process?
Participation, in order to properly reflect its good governance
intentions, is not only something that should be associated with
plan implementation. Almost all municipalities associate
participation too strongly with their corporate planning
initiatives. This trend is exacerbated by the tendency of NGO’s
and development academics to fixate on the application of
participation within the development planning environment.
However, in practice municipalities often have a surprisingly
wide array of participatory structures, initiatives and
mechanisms in place. On the one hand municipalities undersell
their commitment to participation while overemphasising its role
in development planning, while on the other hand participation
can suffer when exclusively being conducted through the plan
implementation.
3.3.2 A too narrow emphasis upon creating participatory

structures?
A plethora of organisations emerged during the late 1980’s and
1990’s to challenge the legitimacy of the local state by engaging
it on issues such as rent boycotts, land release, housing
developments, infrastructure provision and political
representation in a variety of forums. In lieu of legitimate local

government, civics, and the forums through which they started

to engage the state, emerged as proxy representative bodies
and successfully occupied political space prior to the 1994
election. During the run-up to the lection and immediately
thereafter after, a fierce debate was sparked around the future
of civics.
Yet, the notion that participatory structures needs to be

established whenever an plan implementation process needs to
be rolled out dies hard. The creation of structures as a central
approach to participation remains strong, despite evidence that
this type of mechanism may not be an appropriate response in
all contexts.
What then are the problems associated with participatory

structures/forums? The creation of forums creates five important
risks:
o Firstly, forums allows elites and special interest
groups which have neither been mandated by election or
other means nor having accountability to the broader
community, to exert disproportionate influence in
decision making. The risk is that forums acquire
disproportional powers of decision making similar to and
sometimes in addition to elected representatives. Ward
committees can indeed take delegated decisions, despite
their unelected status. Political parties can thus use
participation structures as a crude mechanism to
legitimise their actions.
o Secondly, forums run the risk of by-passing and
short circuiting the political system. The risk is that
a strong relationship develops between the bureaucracy
and forum leadership through placing issues to
management and not councillors. This, indeed, was often
the situation prior to the first democratic local elections.
o Thirdly, forums can very easily become an arena for
opposition political mobilisation.1 The risks are two-
fold; firstly a municipally sponsored organisation can
provide a false legitimacy to leadership figures outside
council to undermine elected councillors. This situation
sometimes happen subtly, but often is expressed quite
aggressively (and occasionally physically!) by attacking
councillors for not accepting forum recommendations out
rightly or for not participating in forum activities – creating
1
Friedman & Reitze.

the impression that councils decisions are subject to

forum endorsement. “Popcorn civics” are a common pre-
election occurrence; they pop up before the election to
disappear shortly thereafter. People use the nature of
civic organisations to position themselves for
candidateship and election (in one famous incident a
political party discovered that the leader of the civic it
elected onto its candidate list represented a civic that was
entirely made up of family members). Forums are political
platforms and they do engage elected councillors between
elections in power struggles. Secondly, the power of
forums and community organisations for that matter is
often not in what they can achieve, but in what they can
stop. Forums and other organisations often use
participation to frustrate development, partly to display
power and partly to undermine elected councils. The
often experienced risk is that developments can be
seriously delayed without sound reason simply because
organisations mobilise opposition.
o Fourthly, forums do not guarantee social inclusivity
and consensus. Forums cannot, by definition, be
gatekeepers of public opinion. The risk is that social
exclusion of marginalised groups can be exacerbated by
forums; a problematic notion in all societies but brought
into stark perspective when also confronted by the need
to conduct nation building. It follows that participative
structures cannot be the only mechanism facilitating
participation.
o Lastly, participative strictures are incredibly
resource, time and energy sapping. Community
empowerment depends for its success on the existence of
the state-community duality and is based on the
assumption that a healthy, mutually beneficial relationship
exists between the state and the community. Ideally this
would imply knowledge of agreed roles and
responsibilities, adequate resourcing, sufficient
administrative and logistical support, institutional
arrangements conducive to participation and a myriad
other elements to sustain public participation processes.
It is reported in the plan implementation Guide Packs that
many municipalities fail in their participation effort simply
because they stand helpless to formulate a process
corresponding to their administrative capability. The risk
is that participatory structures demand and receive so
many resources that development becomes impeded.
There is a widely held view that at government level that

too much participation may be considered to undermine

the capacity for development by putting too much strain
on resources and institutions, particularly where
mechanisms and structures are not sufficiently
institutionalised. This perspective then argues that there
might be too much participation i.e. a point beyond which
community participation becomes self-defeating and fails
to meet broad objectives. A call has been made that this
has indeed been the case in the most recent round of plan
implementation.
3.3.3 Is participation adequately executed?
It is expected that effective public participation includes at least

the following elements:
o allocation of adequate resources to the community
participation programme, and meaningful use of these
resources;
o promotion of legitimacy of and public support for policies and
programmes of the local authority; and
o appropriate mechanisms and training to enable members of
communities to contribute meaningfully to the plan
implementation.
The central feature of the participation process in a multi-
sectoral, project-based perspective is a duality between the
community and the state, as earlier discussed. Within this
approach, the definition becomes “community participation is a
process designed to increase control over resources and
regulative institutions, on the part of groups and movements of
those hitherto excluded from such control”. Stated in another
way, “participation as an active process by which
beneficiary/client groups influence the direction and execution of
a development project with a view to enhancing their well being
in terms of income, personal growth, self-reliance or other values
they cherish”. In the Bihar context, this would be seen as one of
the primary objectives of the plan implementation process.
However, its success has been variable due to a number of
reasons.
Communities can become involved in decision-making processes

in the following ways:
o Information-sharing
o Consultation
o Decision-making
o Initiating action

Thus far, there has arguably been an overemphasis on

information-sharing and consultation as the most suitable forms
of public participation and a lack of understanding of the
elements needed to engage communities in decision-making and
initiating action as forms of public participation.
It is vital to recognize that by involving communities in the

decision-making process around a project, and giving them
responsibility for the ongoing management of the project, a
sense of ownership is instilled, opportunities for wider
community contributions are opened up and the likelihood of
long term success for the project is enhanced. Given the
importance of the plan implementation process, the decision-
making component of participation should not be under-
estimated and certainly should not be an add-on but rather be
integrated into the entire participation process.
A major requirement of the participation process is that public

participation has to be coupled with the ability to implement the
projects arising from the process. Lack of financial resources
often prevent implementation of the objectives of plan
implementation, resulting in a failure to meet the expectations of
many communities. Again, this relates to a lack of transparency
in the participation process due to inadequate involvement of
communities in decision-making processes.
It has long been known that allowing communities to participate

in decision-making processes, especially in relation to budget
allocation and prioritisation, requires a focussed, structured
approach. Despite the developmental value embedded in
community centred resource allocation processes, it cannot be
assumed to result in more efficient decisions, rational outcomes
and increased development.
From this perspective, public participation is seen as an

important tool to facilitate democratic activities. Ideally, it is
used to enhance understanding of the impact of policy and
programmes and promote the development of priorities.
However, the use of public participation in an ad hoc and
unstructured fashion often does not lead to the achievement of
these objectives.
3.3.4 Is there too much emphasis on participation?
Because of its political legacy, public participation has been a

prominent feature of Bihari society for quite some time. But

given the nature of current society, there is a widely held view

that at government level too much participation may be
considered to undermine the capacity for development by
putting too much strain on national resources and institutions,
particularly where mechanisms and structures are not
sufficiently institutionalised. This perspective then argues that
there might be too much participation i.e. a point beyond which
community participation becomes self-defeating and fails to
meet broad objectives; participation fatigue sets in. A call has
been made that this has indeed been the case in the most recent
round of plan implementations. An evaluation of participation
processes will shed light on this situation, although this is not
appropriate for the purposes of this paper.
3.3.5 Who gets to set the agenda?

One strong remnant of the project-based participatory tradition is
that communities should take over control at the project level. A
World Bank official’s quote articulates this view fairly well by
stating: “Through participation we lost control over the project,
and in doing so gained ownership and sustainability, precious
things in our business”. The need to play a neutral or value free
part in facilitation follows strongly in this tradition. The question
is, acknowledging the need for community control within the
project environment, does high level participatory processes
require the same degree of community control? Should elected
representatives not be allowed to articulate and push their
electoral mandate by setting the parameters of the participation
process?
In many participation exercises around plan implementation

communities are engaged without setting a strategic agenda; in
other words, articulating what communities are being consulted
about. As a result a common question is to “tell us your needs”
without the moderation of explicit resource constraints. The
implicit assumption is that communities can make a long list and
that the Council will be able to deliver on those demands. One or
both of two types of participative results emerge from this kind
of process. Firstly, the community wish-list becomes so
extensive and unrealistic that the council disengage the process
and effectively determine set the strategic agenda through the
budget with scant notice to the plan implementation. A crisis of
expectation then requires management. It is interesting to note
that the City of Cape Town, in a paid radio advertisement, listed
not a single issue for which it is functionally responsible. The
entire add, and the expectations it articulated, was depended on
National and Provincial Departments for delivery. Secondly, plan

implementation managers tend to capture the results of

participation process in vague terms and statements of intent
without making explicit budget and without programme links.
Typical of the genre are vision and mission statements about
quality of life, safe and quality environments, economic growth
and job creation, being nice place to work, stay and play etc.; but
without a single substantive implementation link. The result lays
the foundation of disengagement and community perceptions of
councillor powerlessness that only serves to undermine local
democracy. In some Restructuring Grant processes Councils
came to the conclusion that their plan implementation does not
actually articulate their municipal strategies at all; it simply
articulated the outcome of some participative process. Allowing
control over the participatory agenda to slip away from elected
representatives can easily turn the process of participation into a
mechanistic exercise.
An alternative approach is to recognise that locally elected

political representatives have a legitimate mandate. The process
of participation is therefore not value free, but informed by the
policy agenda of the party in power. Participation is then about
the best way to implement such a mandate within the
confinement of resource constraints. The operating question is
thus about determining the priorities within the broad strategic
agenda and resource constraints. The strategic agenda of
council should thus shape the participative agenda. This
approach breaks the traditional mould of value free deductive
participation and calls for a more inductive consultative method.
The agenda should be set by strategy; the strategy would be
weakened if it is expected to emerge from an unfocused
participation processes.
3.3.6 Is participation dealing adequately with increasing

institutional complexity?
The notion that the local state only consists of and is responsible
to influence matters under the control of the municipality is
under pressure. In realty municipalities influence decisions and
priorities through its own service delivery, but also through arms
length organisations, municipal entities, multi-jurisdictional
service structures, utility companies, section 21 companies and
through participation on boards; to name a few. The institutional
environment interfacing with communities at the local level is
rapidly becoming more complex. Do municipal participatory
responses adequately reflect this complexity in creating a
conduit for community participation?


3.3.7 Are social exclusion and nation building being addressed?
The most important aspect pertaining to participation is arguably

the role of the local state in legitimising itself. On a practical
level municipalities have an incredibly important part to play in
creating robust communities as part of the development process.
This requires municipalities to engage head-on with issues of
social exclusion
The outcome of the municipal demarcation process created far

more complex local government communities than previously
existed. Municipalities now presides over larger areas with
complex rural/urban interfaces, combining several urban nodes
in many places and integrating historically segregated
communities, language groups and cultures. The context within
which participation has to play itself out has never been more
complex. Do participative processes adequately address these
challenges?
Arguably participation practice still over-emphasizes the

legitimization of the local state and neglect to address issues of
social exclusion adequately. In time one would begin to expect
participation to explicitly become more nuanced in dealing with
issues of youth, the aged, women; but also with racial, political
and language minorities. Bihar is apoly-cultural society. Now
the need to reflect a wider emphasis on inclusiveness that
extend beyond the majority constituencies of the ruling parties
to also cover opposition supporters, immigrants and other groups
without a voice in formal government. This will be the challenge
for the future.
The current emphasis on a basic needs approach in municipal

developments may result in avoidance of the community building
aspect of participation. Often programmes are turned into a
series of physical development projects with a quantifiable
output which may lose sight of the softer issues and other
external forces . It has been argued that this has been a feature
of the plan implementation process. Given the need for
adequate conditions to facilitate public participation, it is
important to note that the approach must be appropriate for
specific situations if it is to succeed.
4. Conclusion

Participation is a simple concept, but on closer analysis can

drown in complexity. In this paper awareness of some of the
complexity in participation is exposed without loosing sight of
the practicality. Participation is rapidly becoming embedded in
the culture of local government and local political engagement.
It is therefore to be expected that the implementation of
participation is set to improve and become increasingly more
sophisticated. Awareness of pitfalls, current weaknesses and
best practices can only help.

PublicParticipation-A Case Study of Municipalities in Bihar-Shashi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PublicParticipation-A Case Study of Municipalities in Bihar-Shashi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Municipal Budget and Financial

A critical review of public participation in

Shashikant Nishant Sharma

Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 2

Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 3

A prodigious amount of literature on the theory and practice of

2. Community Participation: Origins of the

Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 4

local government opinion levels with only 31% of people

The pattern of rising expectations of public sector delivery is not

Although many public sector reforms have ideological

The main elements of the 1990’s reform agenda can be

o The introduction of quasi and real market competition into

Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 5

o Reforms to reduce costs and increase efficiency;

The reforms in Bihar coincided with a public sector reform wave

Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 6

Municipalities now are expected to roll out a clear reform agenda

Yet, almost all municipalities are faced with a dual challenge of

2.2 The origins of participation in theory

The origins of public participation within the local government

o Participation as good development project practise:

Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 7

o Participation as good governance: Governance is a term

o Participation as political empowerment: Originating from

Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 8

government and community interface participation within this

These three dominant strands of thinking and approaches to

2.3 Dominant patterns in participatory approaches

A general differentiation can be made three dominant public

Table 1: Dominant participatory approaches

Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 9

reform competition in o Market reform nt model

Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 10

2.4 Towards a differentiated participation model

The characteristics of the most appropriate models are

Source: Abbot 1996

Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 11

Abbot outlines four types of surrounds or contexts, along two

Source: Abbot 1996

If one takes Abbot’s framework a bit further, by locating typical

The next layer of sophistication of the framework developed by

Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 12

mechanisms and processes that one would expect within each

Different approaches to participation therefore exist and are

3. Current Municipal experience with

Public participation is considered one of the key tenets of

The deepening of local democracy in Bihar embedded in wide-

Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 14

places; etc. In addition extensive use are made of ward

However, it is only when all the statutory provisions are stripped

Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 15

3.2 Experience with participatory mechanisms and processes

The most common mechanisms in Bihar municipalities relating to

Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 16

o Introduction of self-service facilities and electronic services

3.3 Towards a critique of current participation in practice

3.3.1 Is participation too strongly associated with the

3.3.2 A too narrow emphasis upon creating participatory

Shashikant Nishant Sharma SNS.Sahil@gmail.com B.Plan. 2nd Year. SPA,Delhi 17

government, civics, and the forums through which they started

Yet, the notion that participatory structures needs to be

What then are the problems associated with participatory