DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN ASSESSING EMPOWERMENT
Item
- Title
- DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN ASSESSING EMPOWERMENT
- extracted text
-
to■
'
.
>7$
H
'ay
1
‘
'■?
Oilii
M'’
■r•-
■
f
. .......
t
v,,
- J - .; ;..
a.-.—.......,.
y'
=W
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
=>
J
L
Introduction
Page
(i)
—
hapter One: Community7 Participation
5
$
—
—a
$
—*>
A Review
1
The Instrumental View
2
Chapter Two: On Empowerment
Perspectives
5
Analytical Framework
8
Chapter Three: Measuring Change
Conventional Monitoring & Evaluation
The Critiaue
•5
* 1J
13
Chapter Four: Assessing Empowerment
<*
The Need
16
5
State-cf-arts
18
An Approach
19
Some Issues
25
3
$
—g
ANNEXURES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
28
L■W
i:
K
LIST OF ANNEXURES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Community Participation and Input-Output Frameworks
Modelling Behavioural Change
Complementing Paradigms
M&E of Social Development in The Indian Slums Project
Process Indicators in a PHC Project
Comparative Assessment of Group Performance
PBSP’s Organisational Building Framework
U;.' ;
-
■
-
>
-
r
I
I
I
A drunk was looking for his keys late one night under a
street lamp. A passer-by, trying to be helpful, asked him
where he had dropped it. “Over there”, answered the drunk,
pointing to a dark corner. “Then why are you looking for it
here?”, the passer-by queried. “Because there's so much
more light here”, replied the drunk.
-ANON
i
V
I
■
■
;
'
te
■
'V
;
t
INTRODUCTION
1*
1
n the realm of externally induced social investments in the Third World, development projects
B continue to perforrti the “cutting edge” function. Indeed, the power of the project approach is so
JL blinding that attempts at suggesting alternatives such as “learning process” approaches
(Korten, 1980) “anti-projects” and “para-projects” (Uphoff, 1990) have either been rejected by
mainstream development thinkers and practitioners or simply incorporated as a footnote in project,
planning manuals. So much so, the “projectisation” of most development work and its debilitating
effects have led critics to debunk it as aJpathological affliction- “projectitis”
However, it is often unclear whether adversaries of the project approach are assailing the
ational-comprehensive planning model on which this approach is formulated (Rondinelli, 1983), or
the manner in which it is interpreted and implemented. At any rate, no viable alternatives are
available and the project approach is here to stay. Given this reality, the essay confines itself to the
world of development projects. But the concept of “empowerment” is so intimately linked to
exogenous factors like social and politial structures that the artificial boundaries set by the project
approach are constantly being pushed to their limits.
3
3
3
3
3
I
a
The first chapter looks at the concept of “empowerment” within the context of the larger debate
on community participation . Briefly tracing the emergence of community participation ideas and
practice, an attempt is made to discuss the different interpretations available in the literature o*n this
issue. It is clear that the definitions of these terms are very loose and primarily governed by the
ideological lens of the author, with temporal and scale factors confounding the problem. However,
both the modernisation and socialist views of community participation are found to be essentially
instrumental in nature. The task of generating community participation is seen as an apolitical one.
Vhile it is mainly state-sponsored development initiatives that subscribe to this interpretation of
community participation, many projects in the NGO sector are also based on a similar understand
ing.
The next chapter examines various perspectives on the concept of empowerment from such
diverse sources as the Black movement in U.S., radical political philosophy, adult literacy writings,
women’s movements especially in the Third World, and general development literature. Based on
the literature review and the writer’s experience in working with indigenous NGOs in India, an
analytical framework is presented to understand the concept of empowerment. Rather than
attempting to define empowerment, seven key features of this concept are identified: its “process”
nature, holistic approach, contextuality, the focus on marginalised groups, emphasis on strategic
issues, democratic foundations, and psychological dimensions.
The third chapter concentrates on conventional monitoring and evaluation systems and the
critique from various quarters. The dominant monitoring and evaluation paradigm rooted in
positivist thought is found to have serious limitations in assessing social and political change. But
it is recognised that a shift from this paradigm cannot be expected in the near future and those
interested in reforming current monitoring and evaluation practice in large development projects
will have to create room for manoeuvre within the systems paradigm.
The fourth chapter makes out a case for developing an integrated framework for assessing
empowerment within large development projects. It is suggested that the time is ripe for such an
effort and that many individual studies have already been carried out in this area which could be
brought together. A possible approach towards developing such a framework is outlined to assess
empowerment at the group, and individual/household levels. The approach is supported by case
studies of projects using similar methods at the field level. The study concludes with an assessment
of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed approach and some policy implications.
J
Chapter One
I
1
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A Review
?I
n the context of development projects, a discussion on the concept of “empowerment” is best
carried out within the larger debate on “community participation”. The first systematic
idea of
in a modern variant
JL. enunciation
enunciation of
OL the
Uie iuea
Ol people
peupie ’sa participation
pan tiupauivn seems to
vu have appeared
------- ---------------------of liberal democracy (Midgley et al, 1986). With respect to developing countries, it could be said that
^1
J
these basic ideas were transferred largely in the post-independence era (1950-65) in the form of co
operatives, and Community Development and Animation Rurale movements (Gow & Vansant,
1983).
The emergence of “Dependency” theory as a forceful indictment of the “Modernisation” paradigm
and its obvious failure to tackle the problem of mass poverty strongly affirmed the need for the
periphery and its populace to have a voice in their own development. I he UNR1SD Popular
Participation Project” provided the first formal definition of the concept. An almost natural sequel
was the rise of the Basic Human Needs approach in the mid-1970s when the humanbeing was placed
firmly in the centre of the development debate. Popular participation acquired a sharp focus in the
form of community participation within development projects -a belated realisation that the macro
impacts of development are rooted in micro efforts at the grassroots. International organisations
both within and outside the UN orbit were quick to endorse this thinking. The World Employment
Conference under the aegis of the ILO in 1976, the launch of the “Participatory Organisations of the
Rural Poor” programme in 1977, WHO’s “Alma-Ata” declaration in 1978, and FAO s World
Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (WCARRD) in 1979 followed by the
“People’s Participation Programme” are some significant landmarks which unequivocally supported
he need to incorporate community participation in development projects (Oakley and Marsden,
1984). Indeed, by the mid-1970s, increasing community participation had become the conventional
-a
—
I
wisdom.
In order to get to grips with the concept of community participation, a proper understanding ol
its interpretations in practice becomes a prerequisite. Due to the loose manner in which the term is
used, community participation can be defined only after co-ordinates such as time, scale and
authorship are specified. The historical antecedents outlined in the earlier section have already
shown how, by its very nature, community participation has a dynamic definition. Participation
under Community Development essentially meant consultation whereas participation under a
developmentalist perspective assumed a more comprehensive meaning. Further, the level at which
community participation is being discussed is also critical in order to arrive at a definition. It could
be a study of communities fully participating as coordinators of a process of endogenous national
1
Illi
development or village communities planning for local amenities. This takes us to the third axis of
defining community participation, i.e. the authorship. FAO sees participation as a basic human
right, UNICEF sees it as self-reliance and autonomy and Nyerere viewed it as a pohtica proces& dn
a learning experience (Cerneaed., 1985;UNESCO, 1986; Oakley et al, 1991). Cohen & Uphoff (198 )
t
therefore described participation not as a single phenomenon but a rubric, with the actual tac ics
varying, depending on a host of factors.
However, a decade or so after the value of community participation was recognised, the “cloud of
•»
rhetoric” surrounding it and the “pseudo participation” that is seen in practice (Uphoff, 1985) has
invited sharp criticism even from observers who are generally in favour of people-centred develop
ment. This has led to a serious questioning of the interpretations of community participa ion an
realisation that the issue merits closer scrutiny.
Firstly, it is found that Third World governments in particular• use the concept of community
participation primarily to reduce their own responsibility for promolting development (Oakley et al,
1991) A more insidious dimension, especially in thecase of newly independent developing countries,
is that community participation is used as a tool to extend the control of national governments. This
r
''' ..... . c
has been described as “manipulative participation” (Midgley et al, WSe) “behavmunstinned participation”, and “integrationist participation” for assimilation of frontier areas/ethm
y
diverse groups, etc. (UNESCO, 1986). Making political capital is often a hidden agend
promoting community participation (Moser, 1983). The case of the Ethiopian Feasant As«’cia ^S
is a classic example of coercive participation (Hall, 1986). The tendency to co-opt local leaders
through community participation has also been highlighted. This is particularly true m cases where
communities have been assumed to be homogeneous bodies and traditional elites (normally men)
*
have taken a disproportionate share of the benefits (Bamberger, 1988 b).
Another unstated objective in promoting participation in many development projects is to obtain
data, especially technical information, from the local population with the object of lowering
c
implementation costs (Conyers, 1982). The “double-talk” of international development agenc es
governments and, insomecases, even NGOs, castsseriousdoubtover theunder yingmotivesbeh
encouraging community participation. While lip-service is paid to community participation, th
conventional “project cycle-driven development” takes over in practice. It is not uncommon to fin
<h
the participation-driven learning process approach to be in direct conflict with the
techno-bureaucratic model of the real world. “A strong case can be made lor providing the mu
needed assistance as simply and quickly as possible and not jeoparadising projects with Ue
difficulties and complexities of participation. Delivering aid efficiently is the overriding prior y
donor agencies
Participation is secondary and often not congruent with the pohtica1 and
organisational imperative of conventionally managed projects” (Finster-busch & Wicklin,
• PP-
4-5).
The Instrumental View
shorn of rhetoric, it becomes clear that the commonly
;«—>■ >-—^es beine
largely incidental. This confirms the hypothesis that the idea of community participation was so
2
_____
________ ___
HHH
________
___
e
......... •
1
■
'
'
*
<
,
readily embraced because of the high failure rate of development projects
involvement was the missing ingredient (Gran, 1983). Part, cipat, on ,s seen a a
economic “ends” which could lead to donor-funded projects becoming m
1989 a) This form of participation has been characterised as participation for modernisa ion
(Harland, 1987). Oakley Marsden (1984) have classified this interpretation of c°^n1^ £
tion as the “collaboration-input-sponsorship” type (where participation is treateda m ag
input), “community development” type (in social service programmes like health) or orgamsati
type (with respect to formal organisations like cooperatives).
*
♦
Sadly the renewed interests in community participation in the context of Structural Adjustment
Programmes and lately the new-found respectability gained by NGOs in official aid circles, ha
ready changed this view of participation. A recent World Bank document on “The Social Dmiensm
of Adjustment” (SDA) project recommends “fostering the participation of the poor s^°ee™
activity, in particular by promoting community-level initiatives aimed at smal -scale, in
generating activities and small-scale, social infrastructure” (Fleming, 1991: PP- 37).
Empirical studies examining the manner in which community participation is understood in the
- ajor donor agencies like USAID and the World Bank are quite illuminating. Reviewing ie
experience of over 40 World Bank projects, Paul (1987) found that 48% of them were interested
mterested in
*
community participation in order to recover project costs from the community (in the form of labour
■
cash and maintenance) and an equal proportion had incorporated participation as an objectiv
order to increase project efficiency (timely beneficiary inputs leading to minimum delays and smooth
delivery of services). Another 38% had community participation as a stated objective to enhan
1 project effectiveness (to assess beneficiary need for demand generation and service utilisation). Jn y
20% of the projects had capacity building objectives but even these were primarily or post
construction, maintenance purposes in housing and irrigation projects. Only three projects (8 A) h
empowerment as an objective, of which two were run by NGOs and the third by a borrower
government which had “adopted a development philosophy” in tune with this objective.
1
J
J
~
1
~ I
J
J
of the few statistical analyses of the contribution of beneficiary participation in project
In one
Finsterbusch and
used aa systematic case review methodology in
effectiveness, Finsterbusch
and Wicklin
wicKiin (1987) useu
studying the project impact evaluation reports of 52 non-randomlyr sampled USAID projects within
conventional input-output framework. Participation was interpreted as a group of 15 independent
input variables (subjectively rated on a 7-polnt scale) and correlated (using Pearson product momen
correlation) with over-all project effectiveness (also subjectively rated, using crude benefit-cost
ratios) The instrumental view is very clear as project effectiveness, the end-objective of participation, was defined primarily in terms of physical outputs and other efficiency measures (ref.Annexure
1).
The case of the National I rrigation Administration in Philippines has been acclaimed as a turning
point in the use of participatory management in large public systems. But even here the emphasis
appears to have been on instrumental participation. A key objective was tapping local knowledge for
improving physical systems. Actually, 69 of the 70 field channels constructed in the participatory
project area were found to be “carrying water in a satisfactory manner” a year after the construe ion
■1
J
3
of the facilities compared with the non-participatory area where most new channels were erased by
farmers soon after they were completed. Although leadership-building was included as a benefit, the
purpose of setting up irrigators’ associations was mainly operation and maintenance of the
distribution system. Another significant benefit highlighted was that participatory projects recov
ered about 9.6% of construction costs charged to the farmers compared with less then 5% in the nonparticipatory areas (Bagadion and Korten, 1985).
The dominant view of community participation from a modernisation perspective is, therefore,
that of a packaged “product” with pr imari ly economic objectives such as cost-sharing. 11 is now known
that cost -sharing is often a euphemism for extracting unpaid labour from women, based on distorted
assumptions about the elasticity of women’s time and, without any consideration for their triple
(productive, reproductive and community management) role (Rogers, 1980). It is important to
recognise that the “instrumental” view cuts across all streams of dominant ideological thought and
that socialist regimes are also known to have used community participation to further “national
development” and party-politics.
However, our interest is in “change-inducing” (UNESCO, 1986) or “authentic” community
participation (Midgley et al, 1986) - where people’s involvement is seen as an on-going process and
an end in itself. This generally corresponds with the view of participation as an “empowering” proc s
(Oakley and Marsden, 1984). But the definition of empowerment as any process where participation
is viewed as the end is found to be of limited analytical value in itself. The next chapter, therefore,
takes a closer look at the concept of “empowerment”.
4
Chapter Two
J
ON EMPOWERMENT
Perspectives
n order to arrive at a more precise understanding of the term “empowerment , an attempt is
|| made to scan the different streams of literature that have dealt with this concept-the Black
JL movement in the U.S., western community development literature, radical political philosophy,
-
1
1
1
-I
J
J
3
J
the women’s movement (especially in the Third World), adult literacy work, and development
literature in general.
A review of the literature reveals that the manner in which the term empowerment is bandied
about is no less confusing than its genealogical predecessor-community participation. An early usage
of the term empowerment can be found in the North American Black radicalism of the 1960s.
However, in recent times the word is found in the most unexpected quarters. President Bush s newly
constituted “Empowerment Task Force” shows that it has now been co-opted into official U.S.
Government parlance (The Economist, April 1991). Not to be left behind, Bob Haas, ex-Peace Corps
Volunteer and 95% owner of Levi Strauss, the leading jeans manufacturer, has enshrined “empow
erment” of employees as a stated long-term objective of the company (The Economist, June 1991).
Writing in the North American context, Rappaport exclaims: “Empowerment is like obscenity;
you have trouble defining it but you know it when you see it” (Rappaport, 1986; pp. 69). Indeed,
empowerment is easy to “intuit” but complex to define. This is because the concept has components
that are political and psychological and is used by a wide spectrum of people-psychologists,
politicians, social workers, theologians, political scientists and sociologists. An empowered indi
vidual can critically analyse her/his social and political environment and enjoy a feeling of control
and awareness. Empowerment is thus closely linked to self-esteem and perceived competence which
2ould lead to pro-active behaviour and social change (ibid, 1986).
The concept of empowerment has been linked to the rise of populism and the call for return of
power to people in the U.S.One view is that the empowerment ethos has actually fostered the growth
of new populism, eg. pro-choice demonstrations. The quest for empowerment is seen to be tied up with
the new consumer role in advanced capitalist society where choice is empowering, expansion of
educational opportunities has created pressures from below and there is a general cry for devolution
of powers to local communities (Riessman, 1986). Echoes of such thinking are also found in the
Community Development movement in the U.K.(Craig et al, 1990). From a radical political
philosophy perspective, West (1990) outlines the following principles of empowerment: groups must
maintain constancy in their objectives, generalise the interests of its members, be efficient, develop
explicit procedures and engage in networking.
5
-i
Empowerment is often equated with gaining power and access to the resources necessary to earn
a living. In the context of empowerment of Blacks in the U.S., “The Economist” wholeheartedly
supports this view when it says, “....if empowerment means anything it is economic: empowerment
to escape poverty” (the Economist, Vol. 318, No. 7700, pp. 23). However, this comes dangerously close
to the economic objectives espoused by instrumental forms of community participation.
Broader definitions of empowerment need to be considered. Respecting diversity, local specificity,
de-concentration of power and promotion of self-reliance is the empowering form of participation
suggested by Pearse and Stiefel (1979). Paul (1987) states that empowerment implies “equitable
sharing of power” thereby increasing the political awareness and strength of weaker groups and
augmenting their influence over “the processes and outcomes of development”. Using Talcott
Parson’s analysis of the “distributive” dimension of power (a “win-lose” situation) contrasted with the
“generative” dimension of power (a positive sum game situation), Hulme and Turner suggest that
empowerment in practice is always a mix of these two dimensions. Empowerment is viewed as
“stimulating a process of social change that enables them (marginalised groups) to exert greater
influence in local and national political arenas” (Hulme and Turner, 1990: pp.214) Chambers’ (1983)
analysis of the causes of poverty as a vicious circle of physical weakness, isolation, vulnerability and
powerlessness (exploitation by the powerful groups who commandeer most of the benefits fr~m
development projects, absence of bargaining power for negotiation, inability to prevent violence axid
social injustice provides us with a definition of lack of empowerment.
Using the example of grassroots organisations in Bangladesh, John Clark has included issues
like leadership-building, group organisation (especially savings clubs for women) and alliance
building, and developing a political strategy as some of the essential ingredients in what could be
termed an empowerment strategy (Clark, 1991). Accord, an NGO working with marginalised tribal
groups in Southern I ndia, believes th at the idea of empowerment refers to creating conditions where
the poor have a real choice in occupation, education, housing, health, and especially in social
relationships; “choice is the hallmark of the powerful” (Thekaekara, 1991).
A widely used interpretation of empowerment is based on the access to literacy. Literacy assumed
a new meaning following The Experimental World Literacy Programme and the radical pedagogical
movement of the 1970s inspired by Paulo Freire’s work on the “conscientisation” model (Ramdas,
1990). While the “functional” school of litei^icy draws its strength from the cross-sectoral impact f
literacy (Haddad et al, 1990), especially with respect to women (eg. the high correlation between
women’s literacy levels and infant mortality rates), the emancipatory view emphasises its potential
for bringing about structural change (Freire and Macedo, 1987; Archer and Costello, 1990; Bown.,
1990). This process has been variously called awareness-building, adult literacy, consciousnessraising, literacy training, non-formal education etc., and has formed the basis for popular education
programmes in many socialist countries like Tanzania and Nicaragua, especially in the post
liberation phase. Kassam has underlined the liberating potential of literacy in giving the poor a
voice, in gaining self-confidence, in becoming politically conscious and critically aware, and
ultimately in becoming independent. “Literacy provides access to written knowledge - and knowl
edge is power. In a nutshell, literacy empowers” (Kassam, 1989; pp. 531).
6
_____________________
1
1
1
3
From a public health perspective, it has been said that health care can be either people
empowering, by giving people greater control over factors that influence their health and their lives
as well as a greater leverage over public institutions, or it can be people-disempowering, when it is
used by authorities as an instrument of social control. Citing the example of oral rehydration therapy
(where ORT packets are contrasted with home mixes), Werner argues that the empowerment factor
should be a key consideration when evaluating the long term implications of any health care project
(werner, 1988). In the context of ‘farmer first and last-based” farmer participatory agricultural
research, Thrupp (1987) proposes that legitimising indigenous knowledge is empowering for
resource-poor farmers. The rapid growth of environmentalism and the emergence of “primary
environment care” (PEC) has led some authors to postulate that empowerment refers to securing
access to natural resources, and sustainable management of these resources (Borrini ed., 1991).
The concept of empowerment owes a lot to women's movements and literature dealing with
gender issues. In discussing the role of women farmers in Zambia, empowerment has been defined
as “a process whereby women become able to organise themselves to increase their own self-reliance,
to assert their independent right to make choices and to control resources which will assist in
challenging and eliminating their own subordination. This is a participatory process which begins
at the levels of home and community. A women’s movement of empowerment ultimately represents
i challenge to the bureaucracy which is hierarchical, organised to impose decisions from the top down
and is dominated by men anxious to preserve their power, both at home and in the larger society
(Keller & Mbewe, 1991; pp.76).
Acosta-Belen and Bose (1990) see empowerment as a battle for power against all factors which
perpetuate the structural subordination of women and treat women as “the last colony -the global
capitalist system, cultural praxis, religion, education and other social institutions. Another view is
that empowerment is the process of acquiring “real power” (from the state) over material resources
and political structures (Boyd, 1989). Morgen and Bookman are of the opinion that “empowerment
begins when they (poor women) change their ideas about the causes of their power-lessness...recognise
the systemic forces that oppress them and...act to change the conditions of their lives (Morgan and
Bookman, 1988; pp.4).
The contribution of Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) to the
discourse on empowerment deserves special mention. Following the strategy of “empowerment
dirough organisation’', DAWN has identified six prerequisites for empowrment viz. “resources
(finance, knowledge, technology), skills training, and leadership on one side; and democratic process,
dialogue, participation in policy and decision-making, and techniques for conflict resolution on the
other” (Sen and Grown, 1988; pp.89).
The question that remains unanswered is whether empowerment is simply a new-fangled
synonym for community participation? Clearly, this would depend on the manner in which these
1
1
□
□
terms are used. The multiple and sometimes misleading interpretations of the term community
participation has forced genuine protagonists of the concept of participation to search for a more
appropriate word. It is also true that the term empowerment is increasingly being co-opted as a
“development buzzword” and at the current rate will meet the same fate as community participation.
7
Project proposals containing the word empowrment are given more careful consideration by
Northern donors, especially in the NGO sector. Notwithstanding the loose usage and even the abuse
of these two terms, there appear to be some fundamental differences between them. In essence, while
community participation moved the debate away from the modernisation-driven economic paradigm
to a socially conscious view of development, empowerment has pushed the debate further into the
realm of political economy by highlighting the “politics of participation’.
rr
1
r
The observation ties in quite well with Moser’s classification of policy approaches to Third World
T
0women’s issues, where she describes the empowerment approach to be quite distinct from the equityoriented approach to Women In Development (WID). Moser emphasises that the “empowerment
V
approach differs from the equity approach not only in its origins, but also in the causes, dynamics
and structure of women’s oppression it identifies, and in terms of the strategies it proposes to change a *
i.i
11.: _. r mi. i
i
mi
,
the position of Third World women” (Moser, 1989b; pp. 1815). The empowerment approach is seen
to have originated in Third World feminist writing and grassroots organisations, and the real goal
of this approach is increasing self-reliance of women on their own terms, rather than relative to men.
ut
it
Analytical Framework
A review of the different perspectives on empowerment provides a foundation on which tke
concept can be more closely analysed. Perhaps, the only clear signal one gets from the literature
that no single definition of the term can do it justice. However, from the literature review as well as
the writer’s experience in working with Indian NGOs at the field level, it is quite evident that there
are some features that can be ascribed to the empowerment approach which might be generally valid.
For analytical purposes, an attempt has been made to articulate these under eight non-hierarchical
heads — all of which are inter-related and mutually reinforcing. Case studies of projects adopting
an empowerment approach are used to root the discussion in practice.
i) Process: There is a general unanimity that empowerment does not refer to an end-of-project
product or state that can be attained within defined time-frames. Instead, empowerment is best
understood as a dynamic and on-going process which can only be located on a continuum. This is
largely because empowerment is closely related to socio-political structures within the external
environment that are themselves ever-changing.
ii) Holistic approach: Empowerment cannot be constrained by conventional notions
activities and sectors that are spread over tTie different stages of the project cycle. As it refers to an
overall approach rather than a set of inputs, it is necessarily supra-sectoral (Marsden, 1989). The
case of Gonoshasthaya Kendra (GK), a large NGO in Bangladesh, illustrates this very well. Having
been set up as a creative health programme, GK is working today with poor communities through
a whole range of economic, social and political activities, including group organisation, agriculture
and income generation projects, education and integrated health care. But, all these activities are
working synergistically towards the common aim of empowering the poor (Bhasin ed., 1985).
iii) Context-Specific: Empowerment can be defined only within the local social, cultural,
economic, political and historical context. For example, in Accord’s operational context, empower
ment is intimately tied to the issue of tribal land alienation (Thekaekara, 1991). In another case, the
A
£
8
:_______ _
T
1
1
J
1
3
3
3
1
women from the Dasholi Mahila Mandal in the Chipko movement in India were empowered by the
threat of destruction of their major source of livelihood- the forest -by external agents (Bhatt, 1987).
Thus, a key feature of empowerment is that it is “particularistic” rather than universalistic .
iv) Marginalised groups: Irrespective of the context, the empowerment approach is clearly
focussed on marginalised groups whether they include urban or rural poor, women, the landless,
untouchables (in India), ethnic minorities, the disabled, AIDS victims, etc. For example, Bhoomi
Sena in Maharashtra, India, works with marginalised “adivasis” (tribals), and another conscientisation
effort in N.E, Brazil deals exclusively with women from an impoverished fishingcommunity (deSilva
et al, 1979; Hall, 1986). Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), a leading Indian NGO, has
selected poor women working in the urban informal sector as its target group (Bhasin ed., 1985).
v) Strategic vs. practical: To borrow Molyneux’s (1981) classification, the empowerment
approach is chiefly interested in strategic aspects-those which are aimed at attacking the fundamen
tal causes of powerlessness. Empowerment implies redistribution of power (which could develop into
a “generative” state) between the poor and rich, men and women, caste Hindus and untouchables,
community organisations and external agencies (project managers, the state), etc. It is, therefore,
inherently a political process, Development projects with empowerment objectives, consciously or
Jierwise, aspire to create conditions for incremental structural change from below. This is evident
from the case study of CROSS, an Indian NGO clearly working with an empowerment approach.
“Sangams” (groups) are formed not only to struggle for restructuring the ownership of the basic
means of production (land) but also to strengthen the base of parliamentary democracy (Bhasin ed.,
1985).
vi) Democratising: A key feature of the empowerment approach is community participation (
as a means and an end) or, in a wider sense, democratisation. Clearly, no process that hinders full
participation of the community at all levels can be empowering. The story of Shramik Sanghatana,
working with landless labourers in Dhulia district, India, presents a compelling case in establishing
that democracy and full participation are at the heart of any empowerment strategy (Paranjape et
al, 1984). Since the empowerment approach uses political economy as its knowledge base, its view
of the community and the household is based on the“cooperation-conflict”model. It respects diversity
and is based on “the analysis of difference” - biological differences like age and sex and socially
instructed differences such as gender, class, caste, ethnicity, etc. (Welbourn, 1991).
vii) Psychological construct: It is very important to not.(' the psychological element, in any
analysis ot t.la* concopt ol (•mpowi‘iin(‘nt. Espt'cially al the levdl ol Ila* individual, einpowcMiia-iit. is
very much dependent on the perception that marginalised people have of themselves. But it is
equally true at the collective level, where empowerment is as much a psychological as a political
construct.
9
viii) Sustainability: It is widely believed that projects following an empowerment approach can
build self-reliance and are therefore more sustainable, once external agents withdraw. This has been
amply proved by the ILO’s review of seven case studies in South and South East Asia (Rahman,
1984). Citing examples from several World Bank-funded projects like the Muda irrigation project
9
1
*
” “X
'S
“l“te|s|that ‘h’'»» sustainability afdavalopn.ent projects is more often due
inteBral oart rf
”
“»n'>mWtechnical factors. Grassroots organisations, an
istS KT,
^Powermenl strategies, are thus seen a, critical elements in ensuring
nabditylCernea, 19870. Honadle and Vansant (198S) identify capacity building andtherebt
empowerment, as a prerequisite for sustainability of project benefits.
T^e caseof^yorl<ing Women's Forum (WWF), aSouth Indian NGO, confirms that sustainability
IS igi y dependent on the adoption of the empowerment approach. Self-reliance has to be studied
both in terms of ideas/decisions and resources. WWF encourages womens’ groups to design and
manage their own projects and activities. The original fund of the Working Women’s Cooperative
ociety (a membership organisation of poor urban women) provided by donor agencies trebled in size
sustainable
“‘f'r'!li!‘n“ h“S
li
■I
C
£
%
“Ped “
Before we move on to a discussion on the assessment of empowerment, the broader issues of
measuring the change have to be examined. The next chapter looks at conventional ideas on
monitoring and evaluation and some alternative views.
F
b
c
£
f
e*
k
F
F
the
t
10
t
£
:_______________________ ______ ,_____ •________ ____________________ -_______________________ •______
3
1
Chapter Three
MEASURING CHANGE
Conventional Monitoring and Evaluation
3
3
he impetus for ensuring that development projects are efficient, effective and, increasingly
equitable comes from different constituencies - international donors (multilateral, bilateral
and private), national governments, project implementing agencies, pressure groups like the
media and advocacy lobbies, and occasionally from the “beneficiary” communities themselves. This
mand has elevated the performance assessment or the monitoring and evaluation phase to acquire
the status of an independent discipline in the conventional project cycle i.e. identification, design and
pre-appraisal, appraisal, implementation, and eva!uation-(Baum, 1982).
The conceptual basis for the idea of “Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E)” can be found in the
Logical Framework Approach (Logframe); arguably, the most widely used project planning method
ology to date. The project matrix in the Logframe is made up of inputs, activities, outputs, immediate
objectives and development objectives (NORAD, 1989). Monitoring is defined as “the continuous or
periodic surveillance of the implementation of a project” (ibid, pp. 88). Evaluations are considered
as “independent assessments of the impact and relevance of the project, undertaken by external
collaborators” (ibid, pp. 90). Casley and Lury see monitoring as the process of tracking inputs,
outputs and initial effects - primarily a function of internal management. Evaluation is described
as an ex-post study of the intended and unintended effects and impacts of a development project,
based on a quasi-experimental design and primarily meant for an outside audience (Casley and
try, 1982). Evaluations are also conducted to study the economic and financial efficiency of
programmes (Murphy and Marchant, 1988f Monitoring and evaluation are, therefore, understood
io be two distinct activities (in terms of time, scale, scope and object) which need to be treated
separately.
However, the actual M&E is carried out not against objectives and inputs but indicators which
are “specific (explicit) and objectively verifiable measures of changes or results brought about by an
activity” (IFAD, 1985; pp.37), these indicators correspond to the level of inputs, outputs, effects and
impacts; they signify performance standards and are distinct from targets and objectives. It must be
added that the terms “variables” and “indicators” are used interchangeably but, occasionally, an
indicator is defined as a derived ratio of variables. Table 3.1 attempts to present the M&E process
in the Logframe scheme.
11
Table 3.1
M&E in the Logical Framework
Project Matrix Elect
Indicator
M&E
Inputs
Input Indicator
M
Outputs
Output Indicator
M
Short-term Objectives
Effect Indicator
M/E
Long-term Objectives
Impact Indicator-
E
Activities
Project evaluations have been classified into different categories depending on the stage of the
project during which the evaluation is conducted. Evaluations during the project’s life cycle have
been called on-going, formative and process evaluations. Evaluations carried out after the comple
tion of the project have been described as ex-post, summative and impact evaluations. The project
appraisal phase is also sometimes called ex-ante evaluation (ODA, 1988). Evaluations have als(
been classified with respect to the purpose of the investigation: a) project effectiveness vis-a-vis
objectives; b) project efficiency viz. cost effectiveness, cost benefit rnalysis and; c) project imr '’.tr
(Cracknell ed., 1984).
The evolution of the field of M& E provides a valuable historical perspective for the rest of the
discussion. Formal M&E mechanisms are said to have been set up in the UN system, for example
only in early 1950s. The rapid growth in international development assistance in the 1970s saw the
shoring up of M&E systems as the need for control and accountability increased (Ahmed anc
Bambergerm 1989). Additionally, until the end of the 1970s, most projects concentrated on largescale economic development and M&E efforts were focussed on physical inputs and outputs and
financial expenditure against capital items. The failure of many development projects, the shrinking
resource base, and the emergence of the Basic Needs movement (especially after the WCARRD,
1979), led to a new understanding that rural development is a complex “trial and error” process anc
that M&E of crude indicators of economic growth like per capita income alone were inadequate
(IFAD, 1985).
With t he new-found emphasis on distribution rather than growth, satisfaction of human n Is
rather than production, and development of human resources rather than technology, new manage
ment tools were put in place to supplement traditional economic project appraisal and evaluatior '
techniques. Appraisal methods like Social Cost Benefit Analysis of public sector projects came into
use (Dasgupta & Sen, 1972). Particular reference needs to be made to Environment/Social Impac
Assessment, an “anticipatory research” methodology concentrating on ex-ante evaluation studies
(Derman and Whiteford, ends., 1985; Hindmarsh et al, 1988).
The “Social Indicators Movement” also gained in strength in the 1970s and has now been
institutionalised in several large international development agencies (Imboden, 1978). The World
Bank, for example, now monitors “Social Indicators” which are meant to complement the annua
publication of the “World Development Indicators” in the “World Development Report” (World Bank,
12
________
mi I (■■I i
i i mia
i
in
1988). The UNDP’s contribution in compiling social indicators and constructing a composite stateof-arts “Human Development Index” on which countries of the South and North are ranked is quite
unique (UNDP, 1991). The publication of the “Indicators of Sustainable Development” has added an
ecological dimension to the growing collection of macro-level social indicators (I lolmberget al, 1991).
J
J
J
J
J
3
4
4
:■
The World Bank’s recruitment of a full-time sociologist in 1974 for the first time, the recognition
of “human factors” in projects (1980) and “Policy Guidelines for forced resettlement” (1990), USAID’s
“Social Soundness Analysis” (1978), and the U.K. ODA’s “Social factors in project work” (1982) could
be classified in this genre for introducing “social” investigation checklists. However, though the
struggle for integrating “social” knowledge into project planning continues to be waged in the
corridors of most official aid agencies, the debate is largely confined to the project appraisal and
design stage (Cernea, 1991; Hall, 1988).
In spite of the growing priority that is being attached by the major official aid agencies to
community participation (even if it is of the instrumental kind), an area which has been grossly
under-researched is the assessment of such work. The oft-quoted reason for this neglect is that the
“process” nature of participatory elements in development projects defies quantification.
The “M&E Guiding Principles” book used widely in the UN system has a short section on the M&E
of target group participation divided into quantitative and qualitative assessments. The quantita
tive indicators are once again focussed largely on efficiency issues (eg., frequency of member s
attendance at formal organisation meetings, total man days of labour contributed by project group
members to project activities, etc.) and a few equity indicators (eg., socio-economic composition of
groups). The qualitative section is dismissed in a brief paragraph which states that topics like
“organisational growth, leadership structure, project group activities and outputs and the institu
tional impact of these groups can be studied” (IFAD, 1985; pp. 53). An additional section is presented
on WID which has a more substantial checklist of items to study the differential impact of
development projects. On the whole, these issues are treated as “Special Topics” -an appendage to
the main M&E system (ibid, 1985).
The Critique
The conventional M&E model has come under severe attack from different quarters. The major
v/iticism has come from scholars and practitioners who have recognised the experimental nature of
development projects and the need for traditional “blueprint approaches” to be replaced by a
“learning process” approach, and rational-comprehensive planning and evaluation models to be
substituted by adaptive planning and evaluation systems (Rondinelli, 1983; Chambers, 1983).
The example of monitoring growth in under -fives describes the linear and restricted perception
of conventional M&E: concept (physical growth)-> variable (body weight)-> measuring instrument
(weighingscale)-> units of measurement (kilograms). But the basic problem is that there are no truly
standardised scales and measures available in social and behavioural sciences (Dixon et al, 1987).
As Paul Streeten has commented: “The danger of social science research that attempts to emulate
the ‘hard’ sciences is that it focuses on the measurable and neglects the rest. Some of the most
13
-sJiJniWp 9iil .aJiioinaaeaaB oviJBjilBup bun ovidfijihiBup oJui bsbivib noiJBqrjj.PiBq quoi^ do^'indlo
important obstacles to the eradication of poverty and the promotion of greater equality lie in areas
in which measurement is still very difficult or perhaps impossible” (Reilly, 1985; pp.37-38).
The conventional M&E system has gained a pre-eminent position on the strength of three
important claims. The first is t hat of “reliability and validity”. But the recent study by N.S. Jodha
(1989) in rural Rajasthan, India, shook t he confidence in questionnaire surveys and their validity.
The longitudinal study, carried out at two points in time (1964-66 and 1982-84), using per capita
income measures showed that 38% of the sample families had become poorer over the period.
However, qualitative indicators and perceptions of the community which were also assessed showed
trends to the contrary. The second claim of the conventional system pertains to “objectivity”. But the
idea that there is a social world which exists independent of people’s subjectives awareness of it has
been seriously questioned.
Rahman (1984) is of the opinion that information gathered from communities is necessarily
objective if it passes through social verification -’’the dialogical process of collective reflection”.
Eichler (1988) has pointed out that scientific objectivity in male-centered research simply means
using a male frame of reference. Use of rigorous sampling and hypothesis testing techniques cannot
substitute a first hand knowledge of the community. The third and, perhaps, the weakest claim is
that of‘causality”. The concept of a causal model in social science research where Y=f(x) and
3
direction of influence is from 'x’ to sy’ has been completely rejected (Richards, 1985). Attempts to
model community participation and behavioural change as shown in Annexure 2 have not met with
much success (Cochrane, 1979). The use of baseline studies, control groups, and sophisticated
statistical analysis have not been able to discriminate between gross and net impact of development
projects.
In practice, it is found that most M&E systems are neither cost-effective nor of real use for the
management in decision-making. This happens because of poor and top-down M&E systems design
coupled with a lack of interest in this task among line managers (Feuerstein, 1986; Hulme & Turner,
1990). But the fundamental problem has to do with the issue of paradigms - the philosophical
underpinnings of conventional M&E. Competing world views also lead to competing forms of social
knowledge- each with its own hierarchy. The status hierarchy of methodology interprets hard data
to be superior and scientific, i.e. the danger to which numbers can be assigned to the M&E process.
The product ion and dissemination of knowledge based on the posit ivist paradigm (also referred to
as traditional, orthodox, mainstream, systems, empirical-analytical or classical paradigm) tru s
only objective facts and observable phenomena and is “uninterested in the ultimate origins of these
facts” (Maguire, 1987).
This has given rise to the “alternative” research paradigm (also called symbolic, hermeneutic,
cultural inquiry, local theory, critical knowledge paradigm), which relies on naturalistic inquiry
techniques and a “subjectivist epistemoloty”. This paradigm is based on what has been called a
“transaction model” (Rossi and Freeman, 1987; Patton, 1990; Rabson and Foster, 1989). The
alternative paradigm is understood to be holistic, responsive, heuristic, and clearly skeptical of the
attempt to free data and findings from their socio-historic context (Altrichter, 1991).
..
The contrast between the two paradigms are summarised as being objectivity vs. subjectivity,
14
<
researcher distance vs. closeness to subject, generalisations or universality vs. uniqueness, quanti
tative vs. qualitative, social control vs. local self determination, impartial advice vs. solidarity and
action (Maguire, 1987). Some of the important qualitative evaluation models based on the “alterna
tive” paradigm are shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2
Qualitative Evalu
Model
Description
Key proponents
1.
Goal-free
evaluation
unencumbered by logic
of preordinate objectives
Scriven
2.
Responsive
Evaluation
Personalising and
humanising with stakeholders
Stakes
3.
Illuminative
Evaluation
Looks at underlying
causes within local
context
Parlett,
Richards
4.
Utilisation
focussed
Evaluation
Based on needs of
users
Patton,
Rossi
The major stream of evaluation research which has looked into the political aspects of supposedly
value-free paradigms and come up with alternative methodologies is that of participatory action
research. It is based on the premise that evaluation is a political exercise and the evaluator,
knowingly or otherwise, is in collusion with either those who have power or those who do not. But
it was only in the 1970s that this developed into "participatory (action) research” and the yardstick
forjudging the quality of research was understood to be empowerment or social justice rather than
efficiency or academic knowledge. A Bawden (1991) claims, the process of evaluation can be an
emancipatory one only if the community feels a sense of ownership of the data.
The fact that participatory action research was itself steeped in patriarchy was forcefully brought
home by Maguire: “While Freire stresses man's alienation in the world, feminist research includes
women's alienation from a man-made world” (Maguire, 1987; pp. 84). It is heartening that
mainstream research in social science is now waking up to intra-household asymmetries with Sen s
“cooperative conflict” view of the household gaining acceptance (Wilson, 1991).
Having reviewed the different approaches to the measurement of change, the final chapter can
focus on exploring issues related to the assessment of empowerment.
15
y
Chapter Fou:
ASSESSING EMPOWERMENT
The Need
TW /IT os^P^°Jects involved in ehi’poweHxigthe.poor politically are felatively small andin the NG(
1%/B sector, where the notion of accountability and M&E are vastly different from those used by
JL ▼ Jl. official aid agencies who work with large public systems in the state sector. Objectives ar
qualitative and flexible. M&E systems are run by line managers and field workers; concern for
standardisation, aggregation, and generalisability is virtually hon-existent (Tendler, 1982; Ser
1987; Cameron & cocking, 1991).
This explains the plethora of evaluation documents and other assessment reports of empowei
ment1 approaches in such projects, based on isolated case studies or depth interviews of members oi
the community (Ray, 1981;Axad, 1986). This statement on the benefits of literacy by RukiaOhash'
a peasant women, is a fairly typical extract from an evaluation report: “...now we can defend ou
rights, we can’t be forced to do anything against our wishes, we can’t be cheated. You put your
signature only to those things you clearly understand and accept and which you can read yoursell
(Kassam, 1989; pp. 535).
It is, perhaps, the overdependence on such methods that has led many critics to stress the nee
for “depoliticising ambiguity” (Brown, undated-b). The allegation that NGOs seek refuge behind
unclear objectives using vague terms like empowerment and conscientisation is not uncommor
However, the gravity of the situation has still to sink in fully. At a time when accountability and cosu
effectiveness are at a premium, the lack of a credible M&E methodology for empowerment is leadin~
to a questioning of the instrinsic value of the concept. “Examinations of the results of participr ' ’o
are largely anecdotal and usually conclude with affirmations of belief, rather than tests to conlirm,
modify of reject the common predictions” ('Leighton, 1985: pp.85). Whether this is used as a ruse.b
those subscribing to the dominant postitivist paradigm and controlling large international aiv*
agencies to avoid sticky political issues and safeguard their institutional self-interest or a genuine
concern is a question which is hard to put to test.
Undoubtedly, a truly' Empowering process would incur the displeasure of powerful sections c
-ociety. Oakley and Marsden fear that empowrment “faces formidable barriers and that it is als.
difficult to imagine governments and locally established structures offering other than powerful
opposition” (Oakley and Marsden, 1984; pp.27). The highly political nature of empowerment issue
has precluded support from official aid agencies. The impediments created by “ideological and
institutional obstacles within aid bureaucracies” cannot be underestimated (Hall, 1988).
16
•uirsr
'■•'’A
1
’M"1 -r*
T "KOKT
•
1
■
-------------■> r®
- -tip n
■ '■••i.vii
$
•
t-
If small NGO-run programmes already have methods of assessing empowerment and larger aid
projects are not inclined to include empowerment-related objectives in their projects, what is the
compulsion to pursue this question? Several reasons combine to give this task a high priority. It is
true that, in general, empowerment objectives lack
lacK legitimacy and
ana sound
sauna overly
uvei political
pvinzivdi for
ivx projects
funded by large official aid agencies to endorse. But to suggest that empowerment is feasible only
through small ideologically-charged NGO-run initiatives would not stand an empirical test because,
a) As we have already seen, empowerment does not have a universal and uni-dimensional definition
and most projects are likely to have some element of empowerment and; b) Viewing either the official
aid community or NGOs as a monolithic identity would be fallacious.
Further, there seems to be a new-found interest in the concept of empowerment in many large
official aid agencies. The World Bank now talks more often about “genuinely empowering^’programme
beneficiaries. UNICEF has underlined the importance of empowerment in the light of structural
adjustment; “empowerment and participation of vulnerable groups, especially women, helps to
secure the political commitment to get the policies introduced and effectively implemented
(Fleming, 1991; pp.37). Even the Government of India has spoken of women’s empowerment in a
re^it plan document (Government of India, 1988). One coul i easily dismiss this as empty rhetoric,
bu^uhe opportunity to convert the rhetoric to reality does exist. Talking of the room for manoeuvre,
Moser reveals “there are individuals and groups involved in changing policy approaches; govern
ment and aid agency personnel who argue that the efficiency approach can also be the means, with
a hidden agenda, to empower...” (Moser, 1989 b; pp.1818).
t
Assuming that developing an approach for dealing with the question of assessing empowerment
is of importance, the nature of thi^approach merits careful consideration. It is rather obvious that
any evaluation methodology for assessing “empowerment” should not result in eroding the principles
of empowerment, as conventional M&E methodologies do. The need for using a participatory
paradigm and methods which make evaluation a key element in capacity-building and an <
empowering intervention” are self-bvident (Tandon, 1989). However, in its extreme form, this line
of argument would suggest that M&E systems can only be evolved by the community, who will be
the primary consumer of all information generated by the M&E system. But development projects
beyond a certain size require M&E systems which are acceptable to all stakeholders. The real
clWlenge is to match the needs of all the stakeholders and yet arrive at an M&E system which does
not destroy the empowerment ethic. As Salanen says: “...development managers need something
midway between spurious, short-cut head counting and extensive, comprehensive field studies”
(Salmen, 1987; pp.125). One way of striking this balance is through the process of “complementing
paradigms” (Chambers et al, eds., 1989). Patton (1990) makes a strongcase for “triangulation”- using
a mix of needs-based paradigms and methods (ref. Annexure 3).
In the mixed paradigm, M&E is seen as a continuous mutual learningprocess, and measurement
refers to a clear indication of change rather than a mere numerical quantification (White, 1991). This
helps in setting to rest a long-standing myth that qualitative and quantitative methodologies are ,
conflicting and mutually exclusive (Rossi and Freeman, 1989). Qualitative procedures can precede,
succeed, accompany or substitute quantitative methods. Krueger (1988) wisely recommends the
middle ground- to have faith in all procedures and yet retain skepticism. Empirical techniques such •
17
f
as surveys and questionnarires are not rejected because they are positivistic; instead they are given
a new meaning.
L
State-of-arts
While it is true that the issue of assessing “empowerment” is an area that has not been adequately
researched within mainstream development literature, it is important to recognise that several
significant contributions have been made especially in the 1980s which, once carefully sifted, could
provide us with an integrated framework to monitor and evaluate this thorny area. One of the early
attempts at evaluating participation was by Haque et al (1977) who looked at “attitudinal indicators”
and “self-administration and momentum”. The Work of Cohen and Uphoff(1977, 1980) on commu
nity participation contributed to the debate, though not in a direct fashion.
and Winder’s
(1981) paper helped to develop a before-after design to evaluate work in the area of group
organisation. In the context of evaluating community participation in urban development projects,
Moser (1983) proposed a set of criteria (political/social, economic, etc.) adding that “ultimately it is
an evaluation of the transfer of power”. The panel on People’s Participation, set up within the UN
system, published Oakley and Marsden’s “Approaches to Participation in Rural Development” in
1984 which clarified many of the basic concepts and briefly dwelt on the question of evaluation of
participation. The work in the field of participatory evaluation by Feuorstein (1986), Brown and
Tandon (1983), etc. strongly influenced thinking on this subject although these authors did not
specifically discuss M&E of participation.
I
What could, perhaps, be called the first exclusive work on the subject was produced by Oakley
(1988' under the aegis of FAO’s People’s Participation Project, primarily for rural development
progra mes. Salmen’s is one of the few attempts at using well-established tenets of anthropological
and ethnographic research in the development project context and systematically looking at the
possibility of scaling up the use of such techniques (like participant observation) in large World
Bank-funded projects (Salmen, 1987). Bamberger’s (1988b) paper presented at a World Bank
conference on community participation is easily the most comprehensive analytical piece on the
methodological aspects of evaluating community participation in mainstream development litera
ture. A statistical analysis correlating specific participation and associated variables with project
outcomes was carried out by Finsterbusch and Van Wicklin (1989).
The 1989 conference on the subject of thg “Evaluation of Social Development” and the publication
of its proceedings underlines the renewed interest in the field (Oakley and Marsden eds., 1 990). An
interesting approach within the systems paradigm is provided by Brown (undated-a) who suggests
measuring information flows (coverage, direction and linkages) as a proxy measure of empower
ment, though it is not clear whether a detailed and tested methodology is available. A recent ILO
publication by Oakley et al (1991) given a useful summary of the work that has been carried out in
this field.
The Indian Slum Improvement projects supported by U.K. Overseas Development Administra
tion is a case where a large state-run development project has made some effort to include the
assessment of “soff’issues. This endeavour is particularly interesting as it operates within the
orthodox project planning and evaluation framework discussed in Chapter 3, relevant portions of
18
■" IHI HI H .
.
.
_______________________________ __________________________________
i
which are presented in Annexure 4 (Harding, 1989).
Proshika, an NGO that has initiated about 16,500 groups of landless workers (20 families per
group on average) in Bangladesh, offers a classic example of an NGO tfying to reconcile the spirit
of its traditional participatory action research approach with the mounting internal and external
pressure for a conventional M&E system. The “transition from a popular approach to a systematic
approach” means strengthening of the central office and recruitment of trained professionals which
could dilute the empowerment approach. Proshika and many other NGOs have tried to deal with this
problem by retaining participatory action research methods at the group and inter-group level,
which are complemented by a central M&E system that functions purely as a support unit for the
field work. The central unit has the additional responsibility of acting as a “processing and
packaging” unit to
er to the genuine information needs of external constituencies like donors, the
state apparatus, e^ An illustration of such a process in action is Proshika’s innovative work in
gaining irrigation water-distribution rights for the landless. The “reversal of learning” commenced
at the group level, using participatory action research methods but this was followed by a systematic
study of the programme by reputed external professionals in collaboration with the project staff
(Shahabuddin & Wood, 1989).
With respect to the tools and techniques for data collection and analysis, an emerging approach,
that has as yet largely been used for diagnostic studies and need assessment in natural resource
management projects, is that of Rapid or Participatory Rural Appraisal (IIED, 1988-91). The USAID
has been actively exami ning the value of rapid low-cost data collection methods like group interviews
and key informant interviews (Kumar, 1987a; 1987b; 1989). UN bodies like the FAO (Molnar 1989)
and the UNDP (Srinivasan, 1990) are also beginning to document non-conventional methods of data
collection.
An Approach
Any approach for the assessment of empowerment has to be outlined within the analytical
framework presented in Chapter 2. At the outset, the M&E approach has to recognise the “process”
nature of empowerment. This means that the conventional dichotomy between monitoring and
evaluation is found to be less useful, and evaluation because a concurrent and on-going process,
merging with the monitoring function. Secondly, a sectoral approach to the evaluation of empower
ment would lead to a partial and, perhaps, incorrect assessment. The M&E system has to be holistic
and integrated.
t
I',ur( h('r, it is ahundanlly cltuir that empowerment cannot be defined and hence evaluated outside
a specific context (institutional-NGO/official aid agency etc.; spatial -rural/urban; geographicalS.Asia, Latin America etc.; socio-political-regime characteristics, caste structure, etc.). An assess
ment of empowerment has to be rooted in such key contextual issues. Next, even if the assessment
of empowerment is being carried out within the main M&E system of an agency, information should
be available with respect to marginalised groups. Unless there is such a focus right at the design
stage, it is all too common for aggregate data to distort the picture in favour of the more powerful
groups. The M&E system has to look for strategic changes at the collective and individual levels,
encompassing power equations and political structures. And, finally, the approach has to take
19
I ■
cognizance of the fact that empowerment is as much a psychological construct, having to deal with
the effective dimension of feelings and perceptions.
Clearly, there can be no single way of assessing as evasive a concept as empowerment. One
approach, which relies heavily on the Writer’s field experience with NGOs in India, is to assess
empowerment separately at the level of the group, and at the level of the individual/household.
Although, empowerment at the group level cannot be durable without empowerment at the
individual and household levels, it is generally agreed that in the Third World context, organisation
building at the group level should be the cornerstone of any empowerment strategy (Honadle and
Vansant, 1985; Rahman, 1989). This rests on several tested assumptions: that the major strength
which poor and marginalised groups have is the strength of their numbers; that organisations whether formal or informal- provide them with a forum to voice their opinions amongst themselves;
that organisations lend an air of legitimacy to political work, and increase the bargaining power
while interacting with the external environment; that organisation-building leads to institutionali
sation and thereby sustainability. This “beneficiary organisation” thesis was borne out by statistical
analysis of USAID projects reviewed by Finsterbusch and Wicklin (1989).
Before the proposed approach is outlined, a brief look at Chen’s (1983) participatory evaluation
of Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), a large NGO working with landless groups,
will help place the discussion in perspective. BRAC’s strategy is to initiate “functional education”
classes which provide an opportunity for the project staff to understand local problems and set u;
informal savings and credit groups. In order to evaluate the performance of groups, open-ended
interviews of group members were conducted which generated a set of indicators. Groups which were
identified as "stronger" were found to have a steady growth in membership, and held meetings
regularly where the attendance was routinely high. These groups encouraged participation of their
weakest members through a process of decentralized decision-making. The stronger groups were
those which had clear operational procedures and the capacity to mobilize and manage financial and
other resources. Most of them had been able to gain the confidence of their members and acted as
“people’s courts” in arbitration and conflict resolution.
3
4
*
3
4
1
I
I
At the level of the individual, BRAG studied changes in women’s status in terms of changes in
relationship (with other women, with their families, and with the village), changes in power, changes
in attitudes and changes in resources. Changes in power were studied in terms of women’s influence
in the local “shalish” (judicial councils), locyl elections, and other public goods and services. The term
attitudes was used in its broadest sense to include literacy skills, self-confidence, problem - solving
ability and independent action.
a) Empowerment at the group level
It is proposed that at the group level (women’s organisations, agricultural labourers' collectives,
farmers' associations, tribal cultural groups, etc.), there are two distinct but inter-related aspects to
empowerment. One deals with the internal aspects of group - functioning which could be called
“internal empowerment. Groups need to follow an empowerment approach within their organisa
tions in order to empower themselves to deal with the external environment - “the organisational
congruency” thesis (Esman and Uphoff, 1984; Finsterbusch and Wicklin, 1989). The other deals with
20
1
4
i
I
i
external aspects. From a systems perspective, it could be argued that internal empowerment deals
with intermediate variables (output and effect indicators) and takes place in the first few years of
the project life cycle, and external empowerment deals with end-of-project results (impact indica
tors). But in reality, the process of empowerment does not follow such a linear path.
Internal Empowerment
Although many internal empowerment parameters can he identified, four key aspects have been
selected, viz. self-management, problem-solving, democratisation and sustainability.
Table 4.1
Assessment of Internal Empowerment at the Group Level
It
Parameter
Indicators
Methods*
Self-management
Membership growth trendsquality/quantity
Clear Procedures/Rules
Recording of minutes
Regularity of /attendance at
meetings
Maintaining proper financial
accounts
AD,
RA
Problem
solving
Problem identification,
analysis and arriving at
solutions
CIL,
SRS.
RA
Democratisation
Free and fair selection/
election process
Decision-making processesrole of weaker members
Information fiows-transparency
AD,
SSI
RA
Self-reliance/sustainability
Conflict resolution
Actions initiated by the group
itself *
Extent of dependence on animator
Legal status
Economic independence-capacity
to mobilise resources
Intra-group support system
CIL,
* AD =
CIL
SR
SSI
AP
=
=
=
=
Analysis of documents
Critical Incident Log
Status/Wealth Ranking
Semi-structured interviews
Activity Profiles.
RA
SRS
SM
MR
=
=
=
=
SRS,
RA
Rating by animators
Self-rating scales
Social Mapping
Matrix Ranking
21
V
- (OO
z
LIBRARY
ANO
DOCUMENTATION
b
UNIT
A OA
> Cjj
})
)
External Empowerment
The group will be interacting with several other institutions/individuals in the external
environment, including project staff, state agencies, and other powerful sections within the
community. The extent to which the group can increase its bargaining power with each of them could
form the basis for assessing external empowerment.
31
Table 4.2
Assessment of External Empowerment at the Group Level
I
Parameter
Indicators
Methods
With project
implementing
agency
Influence in decision
making process of
project at all stages
Institutionalisation of
power-sharing norms
Representation in project
policy-making bodies
Degree of financial autonomy
AD,
SSI,
AR
SRS
With state
agencies
Leverage of state development
funds
Influence on design and
implementation on other
state programmes in the area
AD
SSI
SRS
With local social
and political
bodies
Representation and role in
local government bodies,
formal co-ops, etc.
Lobbying with mainstream
political parties
Influence in local schools,
PHC centers, etc.
AD,
SSI,
SRS
With other groups
and social
movements
movements
Formation and strengthening
of inter-group federations
Networking with larger social
AD,
SSI
With non-group
members
(eg., the local elite,
men, caste Hindus)
Extent of dependence for
routine and non-routine
tasks/needs on patrons
Conflict management
Achievements in retaining
or wresting power
SSI,
CIL,
MR
I
I
1
I
22
3
3
3
„
I
3
3
I
4
I
I
I
-I
I
I
1
1
1
J
1
4
Some field-level examples of similar attempts at assessing empowerment through group
organisation are worth reviewing. Uphoffs work in developing a participatory evaluation method
ology in farmers' organisations, using simple numerical self-rating scales has been hailed as a
seminal contribution. The methodology was used in the Gal Oya Water Management Project in Sri
Lanka and is one of the few examples of a systematic assessment of group organisations in a large
project.
A list of evaluation questions are jointly agreed by the project staff and the groups eg., “How well
does the group carry on its meetings without the Group Promoter?”. The responses are then rated
by group members on a 4-point scale as follows: 3=Group is able to meet regularly and effectively
without Promoter; 2=Can meet, but not regularly; 1= Can meet, but not effectively; 0=Cannot meet.
Average scores can be computed for individual questions and for a composite index at the group and
inter-group levels. UphofT suggests that this method is better suited for longitudinal rather than
cross-sectional studies, in terms of reliability and validity. However, the objective is “self-education”
and “self-improvement” rather than objectivity and comparability. Groups have been studied in
terms of operation and management, economic performance, technical operation and management,
financial operation and management, group institutionalisation and self-reliance, and other
considerations (UphofT 1988, 1989).
Rifkin et al (1988) have used a similar 5-point scale to assess six “process indicators” in a primary
.lealth care project in Kaski district of Nepal. The indicators are related to leadership, organisation,
resource mobilisation, management and needs - assessment, and focus on the poor (ref. Annexure
5). However, the rating is carried out by project staff on the basis of participant observation, and
semi-structured interviews with key informants. Data interpretation and analysis can be carried out
at different levels of aggregation. Annexure 6 shows the visual difference in performance - either
between two points in time or two groups in the same period.
Another case using a systematic structure for designing and monitoring group organisation work
is found in the Local Resource Management Track III Program Framework of the Philippine
Business for Socio Progress. The process of “organisational building for poverty groups” is seen to
evolve over three phases, as shown in Annexure 7 (Panganiban, 1988).
Proshika offers a good example of using a comparable methodology in practice. Indicators such
as inter-group solidarity/alliance-building, resource mobilisation, pressurising local authorities,
etc. are used as measures of group performance (Shahabuddin and Wood, 1989). Case studies and
semi-structured interviews of group action and intra-group support are also available - eg., one group
persuaded a poor member not to waste all his resources on his daughter’s marriage; in many other
cases, consumption loans were provided from within the group to reduce dependence on moneylend
ers; a state-run tube well manager was incriminated by the group for non-payment of fair wages
(Hossain, undated).
b) Empowerment at the individual/household-level
At the individual and household levels, impairment can be assessed in terms of skills, perceptions
and actions. Most projects following an empowerment approach are involved in imparting literacy/
23
numerous skills, training group members in basic legal rights, etc. The psychological aspects of
empowerment are covered under the parameter dealing with perceptions. However, the most
important set of indicators relate to the actions carried out by group members on the basis of the skills
that they have acquired or the perceptions and attitudes they have developed. For example, the male
head of household might have indicated a positive attitude towards female literacy; what is more
important is that he converts this into action by providing his daughters the opportunity to go to
school. It is under this section that changes in intra-household power distribution can be studied
in terms of women’s triple roles, decision-making powers, etc.
<1
01
Table 4.3.
Assessment of Empowerment at the Individual/Household Level
r
Parameter
Indicators
Methods
Skills/
Awareness
Literacy/numeracy skills
Awareness of basic
legal rights
Awareness of project
and state development
activities
Critical political
consciousness
-electoral process
-societal analysis
-gender issues
RA,
SRS,
SSI,
MR,
Perceptions
Social status
As perceived by self
As perceived by others
Freedom from exploitation
eg. moneylenders, landlords
r
I
i
1
Actions
Role in group organisation
and other political bodies
Ensuring literacy of girl
children/women
Women’s time utilisation
Decision-making powers of
women within household
SM,
SR,
SSI
AD,
SSI,
MR,
AP
Some case studies of attempts to assess empowerment at the level of the individual/household are
presented to place this discussion in perspective. Women in a resettlement project in Philippines
have used group discussions and workshops to assess awareness levels over time. Attitudes were
classified in a graded from as submissive, pre-critical, critical and liberating-critical. A woman was
classified as having a liberating-critical attitude when she identified problems, analysed them, took
24
___________ _______
_ ______ ______________________
M
3
•I
5
4
a
ANNEXURE4
M&E of Social Development in
The Indian Slums Project
Wider Objective
Integrate slums into the life of the city
Immediate objective
Carry out activities in the field of community development
t
Activities
Neighbourhood Committees, Maintenance of Infrastructure
k
Output Indicators
Numbers of Neighbourhood committees formed
Number of agreements between Municipality
and the neighbourhood committee
Number of pre-primary school teachers
supported by the community
fc
i:
Incidence of marriages to persons
outside the slums
Numbers of jobs taken up outside the slums
Source: Adapted from Harding (1989)
31
J:
V«3U-tt
I'
library
AND
DOCUMENTATION
UNIT
• .
PROCESS INDICATORS IN A PHC PROJECT
RANKS
r-
I
Indicator
(range)
Narrow,
nothing
Restricted,
small
Mean, fair
3
Open,
much good
4
Wide, very
much excellent
5
Active WHC, taking
initiative.
WHC fully represents
variety of interests in
community and
controls CHL
activities.
1.
Leadership (L)
[wealthy minority-variety of
interests]
One-sided 'i.e. wealthy
minority: imposing
ward-chairman; health
staff assumes leadership:
or: inexistence of
heterogeneous WHC.
WHC not functioning,
but CHL works
independent of social
interest groups,
WHC functioning under
the leadership of an
independent CHL.
2.
Organisation (O)
[created by
planners—community
organisation]
WHC imposed by health
services and in<?tive.
WHC imposed by health
services, but developed
some activities.
WHC imposed by health WHC actively
Existing community
services, but became fully cooperating with other
organisations have
active.
community organisations been involved in
creating WHC
Resource Mobilisation • RM)
(small commitment+ limited
control-good
commitment+committed
control]
Small amount of
resources raised by
community. No fees for
services. WHC does not
decide on any resource
Fees for services. WHC
has no control over
utilisation of money
collected.
Community fund raising
periodical!, but no
involvement in control of
expenditure.
Community fund raising
periodically and WHC
controls utilisation of
funds.
Considerable amount
of resources raised by
fees or otherwise.
WHC allocates the
money collected.
Management (M)
[professional
induced-community
interests]
Induced by health
services. CHL only
supervised by health
staff.
CHL manages
independently with some
involvement of WHC.
Supervision only by
health staff.
WHC self-managed
without control of
CHL's activies.
WHC self-managed and
involved in supervision
of CHL.
CHL responsible to
WHC and actively
supervised by WHC.
Imposed from outside
with medical,
professional point of
view (CHL. VHW.
HP-sta:T: or: Latrine
building programme
imposed on community.
Medical point of view
dominates an
educational’ approach.
Community interests are
also considered.
CHL is active
representative of
community views and
assesses the needs.
WHC is actively
representing community
views and assesses the
needs
Community members
in general are
involved in needs
assessment.
■ i
3.
4.
5. Needs Assessment (NA)
[professional
view-community involved]
XTiW = village health worker: WHC = ward health committee: CHL = community health leader: HP = health post
Source: RIFKIN (1988) pp 936
J
>
z
2
S
X
a
-
WWW
ANNEXURE6
E
COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF GROUP PERFORMANCE
t\
\
®
V
v-
I
Management
F
5
2\ 1
3
//
t
/
/£
$
zr
A
1
<* I.
<?
£ \
\
% \
■a
I
Management
t
5
1
0)
£
i
4
3
Io
a
1
4
§
of
Source : RIFKIN (1989) pp 934
%
—
PBSP S ORGANIZATIONAL BUILDING FRAMEWORK FOR POVERTY GROUPS
Level II
Level III
Leadership Orientation/
Organization Formation
Organizational Consolidation/
Capability Building
Organizational Expansion/
Maintenance
— Clear statement of goal/
objectives
— Set of functioning
officers/leaders
— Defined structure
— Operational organizational
systems and procedures
— Action plans
— Clear statement of goal/
objectives
— Organization with legal
personality
— Short and long term
organizational plans
— Functioning and skilled
leaders
— Trained C.O. Volunteers
— Clear statement of goal/
objectives
— Organization with legal
personality
— short and long term organi
zational plans
Functioning and skilled
leaders
— Refined organizational
systems and procedures based
on experiences
— Upgraded C.O. Volunteers
Level I
Organizational
Management
I
J
Project
Management
J
— On-going basic services
projects
— On-going livelihood
projects
— Defined project
implementing structure
— Operating policies and
procedures
— Trained barefoot technicians
— Utilization cf
acpriate
technologies
— Representation in the
Municipal Development
Council
— Refined project systems and
procedures
Source: PANGANIBAN (1989) pp 8
X
d
*3
— Advocates policy changes to
the Municipal Development
Council/Sangguniang Bayan
Advocacy Role
§
zw
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acosta-Belen, E & Bose, C (1990) “From Structural Subordination to Empowerment” Gender &
Society Vol 4, No.3
Ahmed, V & Bamberger, M (1989) Monitoring and Evaluation. Systems in South Asia Washington
D.C., World Bank
Alterichter, H (1991) Do We Need an Alternative Methodology For Doing Alternative Research? in
Zuber-Skerritt, O.(ed.) Action Research for Change and Development England, Gower Publishing
Company
Archer, 1) & Costello, P (1990) Literacy and Power London, Earthscan
Azad, N (1986) Empowering Women Workers: The W.W.F. Experiment, iin Indian Cities Madras,
Working Women’s Forum
Bagadion, B & Korten, F (1985) “Developing Irrigators’ Organisations: A Learning Process Ap
proach” in Cernea, M (ed.) Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Development Projects
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Bamberger, M (1988a) Methodological Issues in the Evaluation of community Participation Wash
ington D.C. The World Bank
Bamberger, M (1988b) The Hole of Community Participation in Development Planning and Project
Management Washington D.C., The World Bank
Baum, W.C. (1982) The Project Cycle Washington D.C.The World Bank
u
Bawden, R (1991) “Towards Action Research Systems” in ZubcrSkorritt, O. (ed.) Action Research for
Change and Development England, Gower publishing Company
Bhasin, K (ed.) (1985) "Towards Empowerment New Delhi, FAO
S
Bhatt, C (1987) “The Chipko Andolan: Forest Conservation Based on People’s Power” in Agarwal,
A.et al (Eds.) The Fight for Survival New Delhi, Centre for Science and Environment
Borrini, G (ed.) (1991) Lessons Learned in Community-Based Environment Management Rome,
International Commission for PHC Managers at District-Level in Developing Countries
Bown, L (1990) Preparing the Future-Women, Literacy and. Development London, Action Aid
1
Boyd, R (1989) “Empowerment of Women in Contemporary Uganda: Real or Symbolic? Labour,
Capital and Society, Vol. 22:1, pp.
r
Brown, D (undatud-a'lMethodologicl Considerations in the Evaluation of Social Development
Progranim.es -An Alternative Approach Reading, University of Reading.
Brown, D (undated-b) Performance Measurement by NGOs- Are There Any Lessons to be Learnt?
Reading, University of Reading
*
Brown, L.D & Tandon, R (1983) “Ideology and Political Economy in Inquiry: Action Research and
Participatory Research” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science Vol. 19 (3), pp.277-294
4*
S
Cameron, C & Cocking, J (1991) The Evaluation of NCO Activities, Organisation, Methodology and
Results (Discussion draft) London, Overseas Development Administration.
Casley, D & Lury, D (1982) Monitoring and Evaluation of Agricultural and Rural Development
Piojects Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cernea, M (ed.) (1985) Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Development Projects Oxford
Oxford University Press
Cornea, M (1987) “Farmers Organisation and Institution-BuiIding for Sustainable
Development”Regjm)«/ Development Dialogue Vol. 8, No.2, pp.1-24
Cernea, M (1991) Using Knowledge from Social Science in development Projects Washington D C
The World Bank
«
Chambers, R (1983) Rural Development-Putting the Last First Harlow, Longman
Chambers, R (1983) Rural Development -Putting the Last First Harlow, Longman
Chambers, R et al (eds.) (1989) Farmer First London, Intermediate Technology Publications
Chen, M.A, (1983) A Quiet Revolution -Women in Transition in Bangladesh Cambridge Ma
Schenkman Publishing Co.Inc.
I
Democratising Development-TheRoleofVoluntaryOrganisationsLondon.Earthscan
Publications Ltd.
Cochrane, G (1979) The Cultureal Appraisal ofiDevelopment Projects New York, Praeger
Cohen, J.M & Uphoff, N.T (1977) Rural Development Participation: Concepts and Measures for
Project Design., Implementation and Evaluation Ithaca, Cornell University.
Cohen, J.M & Uphoff, N.T. (1980) “Participation’s Place in Rural Development: Seeking Clarity
through Specificity” World Development Vol. 8, No.3, pp. 213-235
Conyers, D (1982) An Introduction to Social Planning in the Third World Chichester, John wiley &
Cracknell, B.E (ed.) (1984) The Evaluation of Aid Projects and Programmes London, ODA
'I
______
Craig, G et al (1990) “Empowerment” A Continuing Role for Community Development” Community
Development Journal'Vol. 25, No.4, pp. 286-290.
Dasgupta & Sen (1972) Guidelines for Project Evaluation New York, UNIDO
Derman, W & Whiteford, S (eds) (1985) Social Impact Analysis and Development Planning in the
Third World Boulder, Colorado. Westview Press, Inc.
De Silva, G.V.S. et al (1979) “Bhoomi Sena: A Struggle for People’s Power” Development Dialogue
Uppsala, No. 2, pp, 3-77
Dixon, 13.R. el al (1987) A Handbook of Social Science Research New York, Oxford University Press
Eichler, M (1988) Nonsexist research methods Massachusetts. Allen & Unwin, Inc.
Esman, M.J & Uphoff N (1984) Local Organisations- Intermediaries in Rural Development Ithaca,
Cornell University Press
Feuerstein, M (1986) Partners in Evaluation London Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Finsterbusch, K & Van Wicklin, W (1987) “The Contrihution of Beneficiary Participation to
Development Project Effectiveness” Public Administration and Development Vol. 7, pp. 1-23.
Finsterbush & Van Wicklin, W (1989) “Beneficiary Participation in Development Projects” Empiri
cal Tests of Popular Theories” Economic Development and Cultural Change Vol. 37 (3), pp. 573-593.
Fleming, S. (1991) “Between the Household: Researching Community Organisation and Networks”
IDS Bulletin Vol. 22, pp. 37-43
Freire, P & Macedo, D (1987) Literacy: Reading the Word and the World London, Routledge &
Kengan Paul
Garaychochea, I (1989) Evaluating Social Forestry in Peru - A Case Study, Paper Presented at the
Workshop on the Evaluation of Social Development Projects and Programmes in the Third World,
Swansea, U.K.
Government of India 91988) National Perfective Plan for Women 1988-2000 A.D New Delhi,
Goverment of India
Gow, D& VanSant, J (1983) “Beyond the Thetoric of Rural Development Participation: I low it Can
be Done”, World Development Vol. 11 (5), pp. 427-446
Gran, G (1983) Development by People New York, Praeger
Haddad, L. et al (1990) Education and Development Washington D.C., The World Bank
Hall, A (1986) “Community Participation and Rural Development” in Midgley, J et al Community
Participation, Social Development and the State Methuen, London
Hall, A (1988) “Sociologists and Foreign Aid: Rhetoric and Reality” in Hall, A & Midgley, J (eds.)
Development Policies: Sociological Perspectives Manchester and New York, Manchester University
Press
Haque, W et al (1977) “Towards a Theory of Rural Development” Development Dialogue Uppsala,
No.2, pp. 7-137
Harding, p (1989) QualitativeIndicatorsandthe Project Framework London, Overseas Development
Administration, Paper presented at the Workshop on the Evaluation of Social Development Projects
and Programmes in the Third World, Swansea, U.K.
Harland, C (1987) participation -An Enquiry Dissertation prepared for the M.A. in Rural Social
Development at University of Reading.
I lindmarsh et al (1988) Papers on Assessing the Social Impacts of Development Brisbane, Griffith
University
Holmberg, 3 et al (1991) Defending the future- A Guide to Sustainable Development London, 11 Ed/
Earthscan
Honadle, G & VanSant, J (19(85) Iniplementation. for Sustainability -Lessons from Integrated Rural
Development West Harford, Connecticut, Kumarian Press
*1
3
5
3
3
1 lossain, M (undated ) Conscientising Rural Disadvantaged Peasants Intervention Through Group
Action -A Case Study of Proshika
i.
Hulme, D & Turner, M (1990) Sociology and Development -Theories, Policies and Practices
Hartfordshire, Harvester Wheatsheaf
IFAD (1985) Guiding Principles for the Design, and Use of Monitoring and Evaluation in Rural
Development Projects and Programmes Rome UNACC Task Force on Rural Development
II
IIED (1988-91) RRA Notes No. 1-13, London, Sustainable Agriculture Programme, International
Institute for Environment and Development
Imboden, N (1978) A Management Approach to Project Appraisal and Evaluation Paris, OECD
Development Centre
*
3
1
1
Jodha, N.S. (1989) Social Science Research on Rural Change: Some Gaps (draft).
Knssam, Y (1989) “Who Benefits From Illiteracy? Literacy and Empowerment” Prospects Vol XIX,
18o.4, pp. 531-35
ii
Keller, B & Mbewe, I) (1991) “Policy and Planning for the Empowerment of Zambia’s Women
Farmers” Candian Journal of Development Studies Vol.XI I, No.l, pp.75-88
Korten, D.C. (1980) Community Organisation and Rural Development: A Learning Process Ap
proach, Public Administration Review, Vol. 40(5), pp.480-511
I
*1
k
Krueger, R.A. (1988) Focus Groups-A Practical Guide for Applied Research California, Sage
Publications
Kumar, K 91987a) Conducting Group Interviews in Developing Countries Washington D.C., USAID
Kumar, K (1987b) Rapid Low Cost Data collection Methods Washington D.C., USAID
Kumar, K (1989) Conducting Key Informant Interviews in Developing Countries Washington D.C.,
USAID
Leighton, C. (1985) “How Important is Local Participation to Development Programmes”, Nomadic
Peoples Vol. 20, pp.85-94
Maguire, P. (1987) Doing Participatory Research -A Feminist Approach Amherst, The Centre for
International Education, UNiversity of Massachusetts
Marsden, D (1989) “The Meaning of Social Development” in Oakley, P and Marsden, D (eds.) (1990)
Evaluating Social Development. Projects Oxford, Oxfam
Midgley, J et al (1986) Community Participation, Social Development and the State Methuen,
London
Molnar, A (1989) Community Forestry-Rapid Appraisal Rome, FAO
Molyneux, M (1981) Women’s Emancipation Under Socialism: A model for the Third World?
Brighton, IDS Publications
Morgen, S & Bookman, A (eds.) (1988) Women and the Politics of Empowerment Philadelphia,
Temple University Press
Moser, C (ed.) (1983) Evaluating Community Participation in Urban Development Projects London,
University College London
Moser, C.O.N (1989a) “Community Participation in Urban Projects in the Thrid World”, Progress in
Planning Vol 32 (2)
Moser, C.O.N (1989b) “(lender Planning in the third World -Meeting Practical and Strategic Needs’,
World Development Vol.
17, No.ll, pp. 1799-1825
Murphy, el & Marchant, T.e! (1988) Monitoring and Evaluation in Extension Agencies, Washington
D.C., The World Bank
Norad (1989) The Logical Framework approach: I landbook for Objectiues-orientcd Planning Oslo,
Norad
*
Oakley, P (1988) The Monitoring and Evaluation of Participation in Rural Development Rome, FAO
Oakley, P et al (1991) projects with People: The Practice of Participation in Rural Development,
Geneva, ILO
1
Oakley P & Marsden, D (1984) Approaches to Participat ion in Rural Development Geneva ILO
Oakley, P & Marsden, I ) (eds.) (1990) Evaluating Social Development Projects Oxford, Oxfam
Oakley, P & Winder (1981) “The Concept and Practice of Rural Social Development” Manchester
Papers on Development, University of Manchester, No.l, pp. 1-71
i
4
Overseas Development Administration (1988) Appraisal of Projects in Developing Countries- A
Guide for Economists London, ODA
Panganiban, C.C. (1988) Capacity-Building Approaches Towards Empowrment of the Poor-the
PBSP-LRM Experience in Antique” Manila, De La Sale University
Paranjape, P.V. et al (1984) “Grassroots Self-Reliance in Shramik Sanghatana” in Rahman M.A. ed.
Grassroots participation and Self Reliance New Delhi, Oxford and 1BII
Patton, M.Q (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and. Research Methiods California, Saga Publications
Paul, S (1987) Community Paricipation in Development Phqjects-The World Bank Experience
Washington D.c., The World Bank
I
,
*1
3
*
Pearse, A & Stiefel, M (1979) Inquirty into Participation: A Research Approach Geneva, UNRISED
Rahman M.A. (1989) Qualitative Dimensions of Social development, Paper presented at the
Workshop on the Evaluation of Social Development Projects and Programmes in the Third World,
Swansea, U.K.
Ramdas, L (1990) “Women and Literacy: A Quest for Justice” Convergence Vol. XXIII, No.l. pp. 2737
I
!
Rappaport, J (1986) “Collaborating for Empowrment-Creating the Language of Mutual Help” in
Boyte & Riessman, F. The New Populism- The Politics of Empowerment Philadelphia, Temple
University Press, 1986.
1
It
Ray, J.K.(1981) Organisation Villages for Self-Reliance-A Study of Gonoshasthaya Kendra in
Bangladesh Calcutta, Orient Longman
i
I.
Reilly, C.A. (1985) “Who Learns What, Wfien, How? Development Agencies and Project Monitoring’’
in Dorman, W & Whiteford, S (eds)SocmZ Impact Analysis and Development Planning in the Third
World Boulder, Colorado. Westview Press, Inc.
j^lchards, H (1985) The Evaluation of Cultural Action London, The Macmillan Press Ltd.
Riessman, F (1986) “The New Populism and the Empowrment Ethos” in Boyte & Riessman, F. The
New Populism -The Politics of Empowerment Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1986.
*
1
Rifkin, S.B. et al (1988) “Primary Health Care” on Measuring Participation” Social Science Medicine
Vol. 26, No.9, pp.931-940
*
Y
Robson, S. & Foster, A. (11989) Qualitative Research in Action London, Edward Arnold
Rogners,B (1980) The Domestication of Women: Discrimination in Developing Societies London,
Kogan Page
Rondinelli, D (1983) Development Projects as Policy Experiments: An adaptive Approach to Develop
ment Administration London, Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Rossi, P.H. & Freeman, H.E. (1989) Evaluation - A Systematic Approach California, Sage Publica
tions
Salmen, L.F (1987) Listen to the People: A Practicipation-Observer Evaluation of Development
Projects New York, Oxford University Press.
Sen, B (1987) “NGO Self-Evaluation ” Issues of Concern” World Development Vol. 15, supplement, pp.
161-168
Sen, G & Grown, C (1988) Development Crises and Alternative Visions: Third World Women's
Prespectives London, Earthscan
Shahabuddin, M & Wood, G (1989) The Evaluator in the Evaluation of Social development
Programmes, paper presented at the Workshop on the Evaluation of Social Development Projects
and programmes in the Third World, Swansea, U.K
Sollis, P & Moser, C (1989) A Methodological Framework for Analysing the Social Costs of
Adjustment at the Micro Level-the Case of Guayaquil, Ecuador”, paper presented at the Workshop
on the Evaluation of Social Development Projects and Programmes in the third World, Swansea,
U.k.
Srinivasan, L (1990) Tools for Community Participation -A Manual for Training Trainers in
Participatory Techniques blew York, UNDP
Tandon, R (1989) Partnership in Social Development Evaluation New Delhi, Society for Participa
tory Research in Asia, Paper presented at the Workshop on the Evaluation of Social Development
projects and programmes in the Third World, Swansea, U.K.
Tendler, J (1982) Turning Private Voluntary Organisations into Development Agencies: Questions
for Evaluation Washington D.c., USAID
Thekaekara, S (1991) A Few Thoughts on Empowerment Gudalur, India, ACCORD Communique
The Economist (April, 1991) America's Blacks-A World Apart Voh318, No.7700 pp.21-23
st
The Economist (June, 1991) A Comfortable Fit Vol. 319, No.7712 pp. 85-86.
Thrupp, L.A (1987) “Building Legitimacy of Indigenous Knowledge: Empowerment for Third World
People or Scientized Packages To Be Sold By Development Agencies?” in Workshop on Farmers and
Agricultural Research: Complementary Methods Sussex, IDA
J
UNDP (1991) Human Development. Report. /.9.97 Oxford, Oxford University Press
I
1
UNSCO (1986) Participate in Development Paris, UNESCO
Uphoff, N.T. (1985) “Fitting Projects to people” in Cernea, M (ed.) Putting People First: Sociological
Variables in Development. Projects Oxford, Oxford University Press
Uphoff, N.T. (1988) “Participatory Evaluation of Farmer Organisations’ Capacity for Development
Tasks”, Agricultural Administration & Extension Vol. 30, pp.43-64
3
Uphoff, N.T. (1989) A Field Meth odology for Participatory Self-Evaluation ofP.P.P Group and InterGroup Association Performance Ithaca, Cornell University
Uphoff, N.T (1990) “Paraprojects as New Models of International Development Assistance” World
Development Vol. 18, No. 10. 10, pp. 1401-1411
Welbourn, A (1991) RRA and the Analysis of Difference (draft)
Werner, D (1988)”Public Health, Poverty and Empowerment: A Challenge” IFDA Dossier, Vol 65, pp
3-10
West, D 91990) Authenticity and Empoivrment -A Theory of Liber ition I lertfordshire, harvester
Wheatsheaf
•I
Whyte, W.F (ed.) (1991) Participatory Action Research California, Sage Publications
li
I
i
Wilson, G (1991) “Thoughts on the Cooperative Conflict Model of the Household in Relation to
Economic Method” IDS Bulletin Vol 22, pp. 31-36
Women’s Research Committee (1984) “The Struggle Towrds Self-Reliance of Organised, Resettled
Women in the Philippines” in Rahman, M.A (ed.) Grassroots Participation and Self Reliance New
Delhi, Oxford and I BI I
World Bank (1988) Social Indicators of Development 1988 Washington D.C., The World Bank.
I
a public stand, and joined group activities to confront issues (Womens’ Research Committee, 1984).
Writing about the perceptible changes in female workers' attitudes and consciousness as a result
of WWE’s work in India, Azad (1986) uses case studies and analysis of documents to show that most
group members opposed dowry lor women and favored inter-caste marriage. The work of Richards
in evaluating “PPH”, a development project run by the Catholic church in Chile, from a Freireian
perspective' provides a valuable illustration of the use of non-directed interviews, verbal images ^nd
a host of other qualitative methods to study attitudes such as “disposition to participate in
constructive activities” (Richards, 1985).
“Arbol Andino”, a social forestry project in the Southern Andes of Peru, has tried to evaluate
attitudinal changes among the peasant farmer towards forestry and the increase in his/her capacity
to analyse and solve problems at the individual level. Semistructured interviews were first used to
generate statements denoting attitudes - eg., “We need to organise ourselves”. These statements
were later converted to standard attitudinal scales. The results from the attitudinal study at the
individual level were analysed to provide individual and group averages. Control groups were used
for comparison. In order to measure the respondent’s capacity to analyse problems, mock exercises
and role simulations were carried out. The verbal and written results were then interpreted by the
evaluation team, using qualitative and quantitative tools (Garaycochea, 1989)
c
The study of poor urban households in Guayaquil, Ecuador’s largest city, by Sollis and Moser
(1989) has shown that rapid questionnaire surveys can be effectively used in collaboration with
communities to assess sensitive indicators such as changes in the balance between women’s time in
their productive, reproductive and community managing roles, and other intra-household impacts
of Structural Adjustment Programmes.
Some Issues
£
I
4
It is essential, at this stage, to identify the limitations of the proposed approach to assess
empowerment and the manner in which these problems are sought to be countered. Some of the
major limitations that are faced by such a method are political in nature. In the state-sponsored
development sector, instituting a M&E system for the assessment of empowerment will expose the
rhetoric associated with the concept. Empowerment objectives included in high-sounding project
documents, which adorn the shelves of aid - bureaucrats, will have to be resurrected and translated
into action. Low-intensity “parachute” evaluations that can be carried out by outsiders provide jobs
for many “experts”. Such evaluations are often constrained by deadlines and produce reports that
speak a language that aid bureaucracies like to hear. Moving towards the proposed approach would
not only demand a great deal of political commitment from those controlling the levers of power, but
also a transition from the “mind set” of scientific research with quasi-experimental designs to more
pluralistic traditions. Those NGOs which shun any attempt at measuring progress in a systematic
manner will be equally hesitant to consider the proposed approach. The major problem would,
therefore, be one of resistance to change.
This study, like most other similar attempts, has not been able to resolve the basic issue of
whether the contextual relativity of a concept like empowerment undermines the value of any
25
f
r.
attempt at developng a generalised approach for assessing empowerment. A precise definition of the
concept of empowerment has not been provided and, consequently, the M&E approach has had to
operate at an abstract level. The approach, in general, and the indicators, in particular, have been
merely illustrative and by no means - exhaustive. At the same time, the study has steered clear of
trying to associate empowerment variables with the project cycle.
Assuming for a moment that such a distinction is meaningful, the approach is clearly biased in
favour of the assessment of political empowerment, since it was felt that social (health, education,
etc.) and economic (income generation, natural resources, etc.) empowerment have received better
attention in the existing literature on the subject. The study merely highlights the need to be
conscious of gender issues and users will have to deal with this aspect in a comprehensive manner.
On the empirical front, the South Asian bias is a serious limitation. It is assumed that the “how” of
operationalising the approach, in terms of the methodology for data collection, interpretation and
analysis, is an issue deserving exclusive treatment and is, therefore, treated in a superficial manner
in this study. Similarly, aspects like the proportion of expenditure that an agency should invest in
its M&E system (cost effectiveness) and the staffing and training issues (M&E organisation) were
considered to be outside the purview of this study.
On the other hand, the approach has been outlined in a fashion that can deal with most of the
problems mentioned above. By offering a broad spectrum of parameters and indicators that cut
across sectoral boundaries, it has highlighted the manner in which the assessment of “soft” issue,
can be approached. User will have to provide the contextual moorings and select/adapt those
parameters/ indicators from the menu that are relevant to their specific needs. In suggesting an
indicative range of “methods” for data collection, the objective is to allow the approach to be used
by agencies in both the state and NGO sectors, without substantially altering their current M&E
system.
Although the nature of this study is purely expoloratory, few of the policy implications stemming
from this approach need to be considered. The first, and the most fundamental, issue is to do with
legitimising empowerment strategies, especially in official development projects. This requires a
shift from the commonly held instrumental view of participation based on the “efficiency” approach
to an “emancipatory” one. The next step would be to strengthen the linkages between the project
planning and M&E systems with the understanding that on-going evaluation is an essential part
of the “learning process”. In practical fbrms, the approach needs to be institutionalised and
incorporated in agency and project-level documents dealing with community participation and M&E
system.
Staff at all levels need to have a clear understanding of the rationale and the methodological
aspects of the approach. This has implications on staff - training. It is certain that assessing
empowerment and other process indicators require higher order skills. The lack of adequate training
packages and institutional interest (both academic and training institutions) is an added obstacle
in the spread of such methodologies. NGO training institutions, like the Society for Participatory
Research in Asia could take the lead in developing training modules.
26
F
*
I
i
I
t
c
c
I
f
r
**
r
1
■___________________________________________ __ ________________________________________
I
t:
At another level, it is imperative that the movement for developing effective methodologies for
evaluating social development is strengthened. This could he done by documenting and disseminat
ing many innovative efforts being carried out in the NGO sector. The idea of promoting an informal
network of those interested in the subject (like the RRA network) could be considered. In order togain
from each other's experience, inter-project visits and training sessions for staff in the state and NGO
sectors could be fruitful.
F
1
ft
E
I
$
s
>
27
I
Annexure 1
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND INPUT-OUTPUT FRAMEWORKS
DONOR AND PARENT
ORGANIZATIONS
1.
2.
3.
!
4.
finance
guidance
technical and
managerial aid
facilitation
I
OUTPUTS ANU
CONSEQUENCES
1.
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
INPUTS
i
I
I’
1.
2.
3.
4.
labour
capital
technology
resources
1..
2.
3.
I
I
structural dimensions
(e.g. complexity,
centralisation)
managerial dimensions
(e.g. authoritarianism,
managerial functions)
special qualities
(e.g. leadership,
experience)
2.
►
3.
4.
5.
facilities,
training,
technology,
organization
production
from 1
secondary
benefits of 2
total economic
and non-economic
costs of 1-3
equity
consequences
*
1
I
CONTEXT
1.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
government actions
and policies
markets
other organizations
local support and
participation
local stratification
and organization
demands for project outputs
I
t
I
Source : FINSTERBUSCH AND WICKLIN (1987) pp 6
28
_____
____________
__ _______ _________
£
ANNEXURE 2
MODELLING BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE
Percent of
behavioural
change
First Anticipated
Behavioural Change
I
I
I
500
I
OA
I
I
75
In hundreds
of thousands of
dollars
400
300
50
OA
/
200
I
25
/I
100
OB
+ 2 yr*.
+ 1 yr.
+ 3 yrs.
Project Life
Note : A
Io dnln drawn from tho area where the project ie located: B refem to the area
whom apread effrcla are anticipated (are Table G 2) At A. conaiderntion ebon d be pyen to project
close-out activities. Tire percent of behaviour change in the target population(s) is with respect
factors identified as critical (see Table 5.1).
Source: Compiled by the Author
Source : COCHRANE (1979) pp 77
I
ANNEXURE3
COMPLEMENTING PARADIGMS
Pure Holistic-Inductive Paradigm
(outer left path)
Pure Hypothetical-Deductive Paradigm
(outer right path)
Naturalistic
Inquiry
t
Experimental
Design
I
Collect
qualitative
data
Collect
quantitative
data
Collect
qualitative
data
Collect
quantitative
data
I
1
v
Perform
content
analysis
v
Perform
content
analysis
Perform
statistical
analysis
V
Perform
statistical
analysis
t
I
Mixed Paradigms
(middle paths)
i
t
I
Source : PATTON (1990) pp 195
30
I
(
F
.
______________
- Media
4344.pdf
Position: 6105 (1 views)