Empowerment, Deliberative Development, and Local-Level Politics in Indonesia: Participatory Projects as a Source of Countervailing Power

Article

Abstract

The salience of the concept of “empowerment” has been deductively claimed more often than carefully defined or inductively assessed by development scholars and practitioners alike. We use evidence from a mixed methods examination of the Kecamatan (subdistrict) Development Project (KDP) in rural Indonesia, which we define here as development interventions that build marginalized groups’ capacity to engage local-level governing elites using routines of deliberative contestation. “Deliberative contestation” refers to marginalized groups’ practice of exercising associational autonomy in public forums using fairness-based arguments that challenge governing elites’ monopoly over public resource allocation decisions. Deliberative development interventions such as KDP possess a comparative advantage in building the capacity to engage because they actively provide open decision-making spaces, resources for argumentation (such as facilitators), and incentives to participate. They also promote peaceful resolutions to the conflicts they inevitably spark. In the KDP conflicts we analyze, marginalized groups used deliberative contestation to moderately but consistently shift local-level power relations in contexts with both low and high preexisting capacities for managing conflict. By contrast, marginalized groups in non-KDP development conflicts from comparable villages used “mobilizational contestation” to generate comparatively erratic shifts in power relations, shifts that depended greatly on the preexisting capacity for managing conflict.

Keywords

Empowerment Deliberative development Indonesia 

References

  1. Alsop R., Heinsohn N, Somma A. 2003. Measuring empowerment: an analytic framework. http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/sdvext.nsf/68ByDocName/CurrentInitiativesMeasuringEmpowermentStudy.
  2. Anggraini NC. Caught between a rock and a hard place: the dilemma for KDP facilitators in the kucur tourism market Case. Translated by Joanne Sharpe. Mimeo. World Bank Office Jakarta; 2003.Google Scholar
  3. Appadurai A. The capacity to aspire: culture and the terms of recognition. In: Rao V, Walton M. editors. Culture and Public Action. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2004. pp. 59–84.Google Scholar
  4. Ashari L. My Old Friend Has Forgotten Himself: When the Kyai Call Something Red, Then All Madura is Red! Translated by Suzan Piper. Mimeo. World Bank Office Jakarta; 2003.Google Scholar
  5. Avritzer L. Democracy and the public space in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  6. Baiocchi G. Participation, activism, and politics: the Porto Alegre experiment and deliberative democratic theory. Polit Soc. 2001;29(1):43–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baiocchi G. Emergent public spheres: talking politics in participatory governance. Am Sociol Rev. 2003;68(1):52–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baiocchi G. Militants and citizens: the politics of participatory democracy in Porto Alegre. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  9. Baker J. Evaluating the impact of development projects on poverty: a handbook for practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barron P, Madden D. Violent conflict in ‘non-conflict’ regions: the case of Lampung, Indonesia. East Asia and pacific region working paper. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2004.Google Scholar
  11. Barron P, Clark S, Mawardi A. The links between KDP and local conflict: results from a key informant survey in East Java and NTT. Mimeo. World Bank Office Jakarta; 2005.Google Scholar
  12. Barron P, Diprose R, Madden D, Smith C Q, Woolcock M. Do participatory development projects help villagers manage local level conflicts? a mixed methods approach to assessing the Kecamatan development project, Indonesia. conflict prevention and reconstruction unit working paper No. 9, Washington, D.C.: World Bank; 2004.Google Scholar
  13. Barron P, Diprose R, Smith CQ, Whiteside K, Woolcock M. 2004. Applying mixed methods research to a community driven development project and local conflict mediation: a case study from Indonesia. March 2. Available at: www.conflictanddevelopment.org.
  14. Barron P, Smith C Q, Woolcock M. Understanding local level conflict pathways in developing Countries: Theory, Evidence, and Implications from Indonesia. Working Paper No. 19, Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction Unit, World Bank; 2004.Google Scholar
  15. Barron P, Diprose R, Woolcock M. Local conflict and community development in Indonesia: assessing the impact of the Kecamatan development program. Indonesian social development paper No. 10. Jakarta: World Bank; 2006.Google Scholar
  16. Benhabib S. Democracy and difference: contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  17. Bonham J, Rehg W. Deliberative democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  18. Bourdieu P. The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory Soc. 1985;14:723–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carroll T. The world Bank’s socio-institutional neoliberalism: a case study from Indonesia. Mimeo: Asia Research Centre, Murdoch University; 2006.Google Scholar
  20. Chaudhuri S, Heller P. The plasticity of participation: evidence from a participatory governance experiment. Mimeo: Brown University; 2005.Google Scholar
  21. Cohen J, Arato A. Civil society and political theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen J, Rogers J. Associations and democracy. London: Verso; 1995.Google Scholar
  23. Diprose R. The dynamics of difference: contested identity at the local level World Bank Jakarta Office: Mimeo; 2003.Google Scholar
  24. Diprose R. Conflict pathways in Indonesia: conflict, violence, and development in East Java. Mimeo. World Bank Office Jakarta; 2004.Google Scholar
  25. Elster J. Deliberative democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  26. Emirbayer M. Manifesto for a relational sociology. Am J Sociol. 1997;103(2):281–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Evans P. Collective capabilities, culture and Amartya Sen’s development as freedom. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2002;37(2):54–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Evans P. Development as institutional change: the pitfalls of monocropping and the potentials of deliberation. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2004;38(4):30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fraser N. Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In: Calhoun C, editor. Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1992. p. 109–43.Google Scholar
  30. Fraser N. Social justice in the age of identity politics: redistribution, recognition, and participation in redistribution or recognition?: a political–philosophical exchange. In: Fraser N, Honneth A, editors. translated by Joel Golb, James Ingram, and Christiane Wilke. London: Verso; 2003. p. 7–109.Google Scholar
  31. Fung A. 2002. Collaboration and countervailing power: making participatory governance work. www.archonfung.net..
  32. Fung A, Wright EO. Deepening democracy: institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso; 2003.Google Scholar
  33. Galbrait JK. American capitalism: the concept of countervailing power. New York: Houghton Mifflin; 1956.Google Scholar
  34. George A, Bennett A. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  35. Goertz G, Mahoney J. Two-level theories and fuzzy-set analysis. Sociol Methods Res. 2005;33(4):497–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Guggenheim SE. Crises and contradictions: explaining a community development project in Indonesia. In: Bebbington A, Guggenheim SE, Olson E, Woolcock M, editors. The search for empowerment: social capital as idea and practice at the world bank. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press; 2006. p. 111–44.Google Scholar
  37. Gutmann A, Thompson D. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  38. Habermas J. The theory of communicative action v.1. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston, MA: Beacon; 1984.Google Scholar
  39. Habermas J. Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  40. Heller P, Isaac TMT. The politics and institutional design of participatory democracy: lessons from Kerala, India. In: de Sousa Santos B, editor. Democratizing democracy: beyond the liberal democratic canon. London: Verso; 2005. p.405–46.Google Scholar
  41. Jakarta Post The. Government of Indonesia unveils plan to empower the poor. accessed at www.worldbank.org. August 9, 2007, September 4, 2006
  42. KDP National Secretariat and National Management Consultants. Indonesia: Kecamatan Development Program. December, 2003.Google Scholar
  43. Li TM. The will to improve: governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  44. Mahoney J, Goertz G. The possibility principle: choosing negative cases in qualitative research. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2004;98(4):653–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mahoney J, Rueschemeyer D. Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  46. Mansuri G, Rao V. Community-based (and Driven) development: a critical review. World Bank Res Obs. 2004;19(1):1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McAdam D, Tarrow S, Tilly C. Dynamics of contention. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  48. Nussbaum M. Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  49. Olson M. The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1965.Google Scholar
  50. Petesch P, Smulovitz C, Walton M. Evaluating empowerment: a framework with cases from Latin America. Washington: World Bank; 2005.Google Scholar
  51. Piven FF, Cloward R. Poor people’s movements: why they succeed and how they fail. New York: Pantheon Press; 1977.Google Scholar
  52. Pritchett L, Woolcock M. Solutions when the solution is the problem: arraying the disarray in development. World Dev. 2004;32(2):191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Probo E. Coastal community sea change: Spillover effects from implementation of Kecamatan development program in Kecamatan Pasean, Kabupatan Pamekasan, East Java. Translated by Suzan Piper. Mimeo. World Bank Office Jakarta; 2003.Google Scholar
  54. Rao V. Symbolic public goods and the coordination of collective action: a comparison of local development in India and Indonesia. In: Bardhan P, Ray I, editors. The contested commons: conversations between economists and anthropologists. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons; 2008. p. 168–86.Google Scholar
  55. Rao V, Walton M. Culture and public action: relationality, equality of agency, and development. In: Rao V, Walton M, editors. Culture and public action. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2004. p. 3–36.Google Scholar
  56. Rasyid I, Probo E. A cracked social edifice: conflict between government, contractors and the community in the development of the Sumorobangun Dam. Translated by Joanne Sharpe. Mimeo. World Bank Office Jakarta; 2003.Google Scholar
  57. Santos B de Sousa (ed). Democratizing democracy: beyond the liberal democratic canon. London: Verso; 2005.Google Scholar
  58. Scott J. Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  59. Sen A. Development as freedom. New York: Random House; 1999.Google Scholar
  60. Snyder R. Scaling down: the subnational comparative method. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2001;36(1):93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tilly C. Durable inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  62. Unger RM. Democracy realized. New York: Verso; 1998.Google Scholar
  63. Varshney A. Ethnic conflict and civic life: hindus and muslims in India. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  64. Whiteside K, Woolcock M, de Sousa Briggs X. Assessing social development projects: Integrating the art of practice and the science of evaluation. World Bank, Development Research Group, mimeo; 2005.Google Scholar
  65. World Bank. 2005. Community driven development website of the World Bank. http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/sdvext.nsf/09ByDocName/CommunityDrivenDevelopment Accessed July 16, 2006.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.Brooks World Poverty InstituteUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations