Advantages and Disadvantages of Community Participation

What Is Community Participation?

Community means more than a group of people who live in proximity and occupy the same relative environment. When used in terms such as community participation and community engagement, the word "community" implies several orders of interaction and motivation. People who participate in their communities are internally motivated — they care about the community socially, culturally, environmentally, and economically, and that motivation extends into action that supports their belief in the community. In many parts of the world, community participation may be the best and fastest way for communities to address their own problems and establish firm ties with public administration and government.

Bureaucracy, administrative politics, and other systemic factors often interfere with communities receiving the assistance or allocation of resources needed to solve a problem. Some issues — sociological ones, for example — may only find lasting resolution if that resolution is generated and executed by the community itself. In countries with a clear and apparent history of poor leadership and disregard for community needs, community participation can serve as a bridge: between communities, and between governments and communities when leadership or political attitudes have changed.

Community participation — the direct involvement and engagement of ordinary people in the affairs of planning, governance, and overall development at the local or grassroots level — has become an integral part of democratic practice in recent years (Jayal, 2001). In the case of post-apartheid South Africa, community participation has literally become synonymous with legitimate governance (Williams, 2006).

Community participation can involve community members in local affairs in more substantive ways, and can serve as a more accurate representation of a community's interests in government decisions. It has the potential to make citizens feel much more connected to their community — both as a place and as a group of people who share common space. However, community participation requires the cooperation and fairness of both government officials and community representatives in order to maximize its potential for positive change. That cooperation and equity are not always present.

"In short, it would seem that the bureaucratic elites of officials and councilors are determined to impose their own truncated version and understanding of 'community participation' on particular communities. This highly atrophied form of 'participation' seems to be working precisely…" (Williams, 2006)

The Role of Government and Administration

Government officials may oppose community participation conceptually because it shifts power away from government and places it in the hands of those who actually live in the community. Officials may also fail to sincerely participate in community engagement because they are uninformed about the community's genuine needs and do not make meaningful efforts to acquire more accurate information. Furthermore, officials may use the appearance of community participation as a strategy to prevent a community from progressing in directions contrary to a government plan or political agenda. In extreme cases, such officials may pose a danger to citizens who challenge them or who are perceived as too politically capable for their comfort.

Community participation is a compelling idea in theory, yet it is not always effective in practice. It is not limited to one region of the world — community participation occurs in Africa, Europe, and South America, among other places (Williams, 2006; Lowndes et al., 2001; McNeish, 2006). Numerous factors can cause community participation to generate more conflict and less efficacy than intended. At its foundation, community participation cannot function without a genuinely engaged community. Members must be motivated — ideally with at least some degree of altruism — to serve the community and to take organized, consistent action to improve community life. Without that motivation, community participation is ineffective.

Effective community participation also requires cooperative and collaborative government officials, bureaucrats, and administrators. Community participation is coordinated action across multiple groups of people, and it functions best when all of those groups communicate openly and work together. When community engagement fails, people tend to assign blame to a person, group, system, idea, or goal. Identifying the factors that make community participation work — before action is underway — reduces the likelihood of those failures.

"Many citizens, administrators, and politicians are interested in increasing public participation in public decisions. Efforts to do so are currently underway across the country. However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that these efforts are not effective. Some efforts appear to be ineffective because of poor planning or execution. Other efforts may not work because administrative systems that are based upon expertise and professionalism leave little room for participatory processes." (King et al., 2008)

Community participation is therefore a sensitive endeavor that can be compromised or undermined by a number of factors, including participants who lack professional attitudes or the willingness to cooperate. Successful community action is neither simple nor accidental.

Barriers to Effective Community Participation

The role of participation in public administration has historically been one of ambivalence. Although the political system in the United States is designed to reflect and foster an active citizenry, it is also designed to protect political and administrative processes from an overly active citizenry (King et al., 1998). Consequently, the government sometimes cannot move forward and accomplish its objectives without the cooperation and trust of the community, yet it simultaneously resists the structural changes that would make such cooperation meaningful.

Because of the numerous public failures of public administrators and government officials, many communities will not cooperate without meaningful representation and participation in legislation and community activities.

"There is also growing recognition on the part of administrators that decision making without public participation is ineffective. In recent times, interest in public participation in administrative decision making has increased as a result of a number of factors, not the least of which is that a citizenry with diminished trust in government is demanding more accountability from public officials." (King et al., 1998)

In contrast to earlier decades, public administrators and government officials in the 21st century can no longer assume community deference. Citizens now have far greater access to information about the issues that affect them, as well as about the performance of their public servants. Decisions made on behalf of a community without its participation have proven ineffective in the long term and often waste time and resources. Community participation has therefore become part of a broader strategy to use public resources more effectively.

Culture, like time, is relative: the kinds of community participation that succeed in one community are not guaranteed to yield the same results in another, even if those communities appear superficially similar. When public officials and administrators attempt public engagement, they must research and understand the communities and cultures with which they wish to engage; without that knowledge, the probability of success decreases significantly.

"In the context of conventional participation, the administrator controls the ability of the citizen to influence the situation or the process. The administrative structures and processes are the politically and socially constructed frameworks within which the administrator must operate. These frameworks give the administrator the authority to formulate decisions…[and the citizen] has no real power to redefine the issue or to alter administrative processes to allow for greater citizen involvement." (King et al., 1998)

Public scandals, flawed methods, and unequal social relationships all contribute to the failure of community participation. Public administrators face the daunting task of earning the trust and respect of the communities they serve, against a general backdrop of deep institutional mistrust.

"In the context of conventional participation the administrator plays the role of the expert…participation within this context is structured to maintain the centrality of the administrator while publicly presenting the administrator as representative, consultative, or participatory. The citizen becomes the 'client' of the professional administrator, ill-equipped to question the professional's authority and technical knowledge…the administrator is separated from the 'demands, needs, and values' of the people whom he or she is presumed to be serving…Participation in this context is ineffective and conflictual." (King et al., 1998)

People want to believe in their officials and administrators, but they are continually disappointed, and the press tends to amplify officials' failures rather than their successes. Administrators must make community members feel that their knowledge is just as potent and valuable as that of the administration itself.

References

Baiocchi, G. (1999). Participation, activism, and politics: The Porto Alegre experiment and deliberative democratic theory. University of Wisconsin: Madison.

Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, September/October, 846–860.

Carr, D. S., & Halvorsen, K. (2001). An evaluation of three democratic, community-based approaches to citizen participation: Surveys, conversation with community groups, and community dinners. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 107–126.

Cornwall, A., & Coelho, V. S. P. (Eds.). (2004). New democratic spaces? Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, 35(2), 1–100.

Gaventa, J. (2004). Representation, community leadership and participation: Citizen involvement in neighbourhood renewal and local governance. Institute of Development Studies: UK.

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2000). Public participation in planning: New strategies for the 21st century. IURD Working Papers Series, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California: Berkeley.

Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65.

King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. N. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317–326.

Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L., & Stoker, G. (2001). Trends in public participation: Part 1 — Local government perspectives. Public Administration, 79(1), 205–222.

McNeish, J-A. (2006). Stones on the road: The politics of participation and the generation of crisis in Bolivia. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 25(2), 220–240.

Weeks, E. C. (2000). The practice of deliberative democracy: Results from four large-scale trials. Public Administration Review, 60(4), 360–372.

Williams, J. J. (2006). Community participation: Lessons from post-apartheid South Africa. Policy Issues, 27(3), 197–217.