Advertisement

Introduction

  • Amar Patnaik
Chapter

Abstract

Patnaik seeks to address the causes underlying the failure of most policy interventions in achieving the expected results in the Indian rural ecosystem despite their sound economic logic and the best of intentions of policy makers. Alternate development theories advocate genuine participation by the would-be beneficiaries for success. Patnaik finds that absence of genuine participation by ultimate beneficiaries as the main reason behind such failure. In this chapter, the senior bureaucrat trots the possible reasons behind the inability of sustaining such participatory processes. Presenting three such distinct cases in the eastern state of Odisha, he proposes to draw on available literature on institutional change and rural power structures to examine the issue that sets the tone for his research. Patnaik also seeks to find an answer on how to ensure sustained community participation in a society deeply fractured by socio-economic inequality and a range of other power asymmetries.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2004). Institutions as the fundamental cause of long-run growth. In P. Aghion & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of economic growth. North Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Adelman, I. (1974a). Strategies for equitable growth. Challenge, 17(2), 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adelman, I. (1974b). Redistribution with growth. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Adelman, I. (1995a). Institutions and development strategies: The selected essays of Irma Adelman volume I. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Adelman, I. (1995b). Dynamics and income distribution: The selected essays of Irma Adelman volume II. Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Bamberger, M. (1991). The importance of community participation. Public Administration and Development Economic Development Institute, The World Bank, 11, 281–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bank, W. (1994). The World Bank and Participation.Google Scholar
  8. Bevan, P. (2000). Who’s a goody? Demythologising the PRA agenda. Journal of International Development, 12, 751–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blackburn, J., Chambers, R., & Gaventa, J. (1998). Learning to take time and go slow: Mainstreaming participation in development and the Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF). Operations Evaluation Dept., World Bank. Brighton: IDS.Google Scholar
  10. Blackburn, J., Chambers, R., & Gaventa, J. (2000). Mainstreaming participation in development. Making development (OED Working Paper Size No. 10). World Bank.Google Scholar
  11. Brett, E. A. (2000). Development theory in a post-socialist era: Competing capitalisms and emancipatory alternatives. Journal of International Development, 12(6), 789–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  13. Chambers, R. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22(7), 953–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chambers, R. (1998). Beyond “whose reality counts?” New methods we now need? Studies in Cultures, Organisations and Societies, 4, 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chambers, R., Saxena, N. C., & Shah, T. (1989). To the hands of the poor: Water and trees. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, J., & Uphoff, N. (1980). Participation’s place in rural development: Seeking clarity through specificity. World Development, 8(3), 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cornwall, A., & Nyamu-Musemb, C. (2004). Putting the ‘rights-based approach, to development into perspective. Third World Quarterly, 25(8), 1415–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Emmett, T. (2000). Beyond community participation? Alternative routes to civil engagement and development in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 17(4), 501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The Making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Evans, P. (2004). Development as institutional change: The pitfalls of mono-cropping and the potentials of deliberation. Studies in Comparative International Development, 38(4), 30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Finsterbusch, K., & Van Wicklin III, W. A. (1987). The contribution of beneficiary participation to development of project effectiveness. Public Administration and Development, 7, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Finsterbusch, K., & Van Wicklin III, W. A. (1989). Beneficiary participation in development projects: Empirical tests of popular theories. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 37(3), 573–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Freire, P. (1973). The pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  26. Fukuyama, F. (2002). Social capital and development: The coming agenda. SAIS Review, 22(1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gaventa, J., & Robinson, M. (1998). Influence from below & space from above: Non-elite action and pro-poor policy. Paper prepared from Poverty Conference, Institute of Development Studies.Google Scholar
  28. Illich, I. (1977). Towards a history of needs. Berkley: Heyday Books.Google Scholar
  29. Jacobs, G., Macfarlane, R., & Asokan, N. (1997). Comprehensive theory of social development. International Center for Peace and Development Napa, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Jutting, J. (2003) Institutions and development: A critical review (OECD Development Centre Working Paper No. 210).Google Scholar
  31. Korten, D. C. (1980). Community organisation and rural development: A learning process approach. Public Administration Review, 40(5), 480–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Munir, K. A. (2005). The social construction of events: A study of institutional change in the photographic field. Organization Studies, 26(1), 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nayak, A. K. J. R. (2008). Participation and development outcomes in a top-down institutional set-up: Empirical evidences from the KBK districts of India. In the 20th Annual Convention-2008, Association of Indian Management Schools, Mumbai.Google Scholar
  34. North, D. C. (1992). Institutions and economic theory. The American Economist, 36(1), 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. North, D. C. (1994). Institutions matter. Economic History, 9411004.Google Scholar
  36. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paul, S. (1991). Accountability in public services: Exit, voice, and capture. World Bank: Country Economics Dept.Google Scholar
  39. Pieterse, J. N. (1998). My paradigm or yours? Alternative development, post development, reflexive development. Development and Change, 29(2), 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Qian, Y. (2003). How reform worked in China. In D. Rodrik (Ed.), Search of prosperity: Analytic narratives on economic growth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rodrik, D. (2004). Getting institutions right. CES ifo DICE Report, 2, 10–15.Google Scholar
  43. Rodrik, D., & Rosenzweig, M. (2009). Development policy and development economics: An introduction. Introduction to handbook of development economics (Vol. 5). Oxford: North Holland.Google Scholar
  44. Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2002). Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. Journal of Economic Growth, 9(2), 131–165.Google Scholar
  45. Simon, D. (1997). Development reconsidered; New directions in development thinking. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 79(4), 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stiglitz, J. E. (1998). Towards a new paradigm for development: strategies, policies and processes. Prebisch Lecture.Google Scholar
  47. Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Participation and development: Perspectives from the comprehensive development paradigm. Review of Development Economics, 6(2), 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Streeten, P. (1995). Markets and states: Against minimalism and dichotomy. Political Economy Journal of India, 3(1), 4–5.Google Scholar
  49. Tandon and Cordeiro. (1998, November 19–20). Participation of primary stakeholders in world bank’s project and policy work: Emerging lessons. Contribution to the International Conference on Mainstreaming and up-scaling of primary stakeholder participation—Lessons learned and ways forward. Washington.Google Scholar
  50. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (2 Vols., G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wolfe, M. (1996). Elusive development. London: Fed Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amar Patnaik
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Government and Public AffairsXavier UniversityBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations