The meteoric rise of 'participation' in urban policy is premised upon the supposed benefits it brings in terms of added project 'efficiency', 'sustainability' and even 'empowerment' of participants. Yet, even as participation appears to reach its very zenith, it comes under heightened criticism from a growing chorus of observers. Some critics have suggested, for example, that 'participation', and contemporary urban regeneration's preferred institutional vehicle for it, 'partnership', can have a capacity for tyrannical decision-making. The article draws upon a diverse range of literature, including the rich experience of almost 20 years of 'participation' in the 'developing world', as well as the findings of a research project looking at a major regeneration programme on Merseyside, in order to highlight the multifaceted problems of—and possibilities for-participation. Ultimately, whether participation can alter social stratification within communities is unclear, it may even (re)produce inequalities. The difficulties should not mean that the participatory project is jettisoned. Rather, the article is a call for a research and policy debate characterised by a greater degree of honesty and maturity concerning participation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amin, A. (2000) The democratic city. Paper for the Annual Conference of the Institute of British Geographers, January, Brighton.
2.
Arnstein, S. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation, AIP, 35, July, pp. 216-224.
3.
Atkinson, R. (1999) Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban regeneration, UrbanStudies, 36(1), pp. 59-72.
4.
Atkinson, R. and Cope, S. (1997) Community participation and urban regeneration in Britain, in: P. Hoggett (Ed.) Contested Communities, pp. 201-221, Bristol: Policy Press.
5.
Blair, T. (1998) Speech to National Association of Councils for Voluntary Service. (www.nacvs.org.uk).
6.
Burkey, S. (1991) Participatory Practice. London : Zed Books.
7.
Cleaver, F. (2001) Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory approaches to development, in: B. Cooke and U. Kothari (Eds) Participation: the New Tyranny?, pp. 36-55, London: Zed Books .
8.
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny?London: Zed Books.
9.
Department Of Social Security (1999) Opportunity for All: Tackling Poverty and Social Exclusion. London: HMSO.
10.
European Commission (1995) Single Programming Document for Merseyside. Brussels: EC.
11.
Gaventa, J. (1998) Poverty, participation and social exclusion in North and South, Institute of Development Studies Bulletin29(1), pp. 50-57.
12.
Gonzales, J.M. (2000) State-led experiments in participatory development in Columbia. Paper for the Workshop on 'Local Politics and Democratisation in Developing Countries', University of Oslo, November.
13.
Guijt, I. and Shah, M. (Eds) (1998) The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in Participatory Development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
14.
Hall, T. and Hubbard, P. (1996) The entrepreneurial city: new politics, new urban geographies, Progress in Human Geography, 20, pp. 153-174.
15.
Henkel, H. and Stirrat, R. (2001) Participation as spiritual duty; empowerment as secular subjection, in: B. Cooke and U. Kothari (Eds) Participation: The New Tyranny?, pp. 168-184. London: Zed Books.
16.
Hibbitt, K., Jones, P. and Meegan, R. (2001) Tackling social exclusion: the role of social capital in urban regeneration on Merseyside-from mistrust to trust?, European Planning Studies, 9, pp. 141-161.
17.
Hussein, K. (1995) Participatory Ideology and practical development: agency control in a fisheries project, Lake Kariba, in: N. Nelson and S. Wright (Eds) Power and Participatory Development, pp. 123-144. London : Intermediate Technology Group
18.
Imrie, R. and Raco, M. (1999) How new is the new local governance? Lessons from the United Kingdom, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 24, pp. 45-64.
19.
Jackson, C. (1999) Social exclusion and gender: does one size fit all?, The European Journal of Development Research, 11(1), pp. 125-146.
20.
Jones, P.S. (2000) Why is it alright to do development 'over there' but not 'here'? Changing vocabularies and common strategies of inclusion across the 'first' and 'third' worlds, Area, 31(2), pp. 237-241.
21.
Judge, D., Stoker, G. and Wolman, H. (Eds) ( 1995) Theories of Urban Politics. London : Sage.
22.
Kabeer, N. (1994) Reversed Realities. London: Verso.
23.
Kearns, A. and Forrest, R. (1998) Social cohesion, neighbourhoods and cities. Paper for the Housing Studies Spring Conference, University of York, April.
24.
Kothari, U. (2001) Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development, in: B. Cooke and U. Kothari (Eds) Participation: The New Tyranny ?, pp. 139-152, London: Zed Books.
25.
Kumar, S. and Corbridge, S. (2001) Programmed to fail? Development projects and the politics of participation. Paper for the Nordic Conference of Geographers, University of Oslo, October.
26.
Levitas, R. (1998) The Inclusive Society. London : Macmillan.
27.
Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View. London : Macmillan.
28.
Madanipour, A., Cars, G. and Allen, J. ( 1998) (Eds) Social Exclusion in European Cities: Processes, Experiences and Responses. London: Jessica Kingsley .
29.
Mayer, M. (1994) Post-Fordist city politics, in: R. T. Legates and F. Stout (Eds) The City Reader, pp. 229-239. London : Routledge.
30.
Meegan, R. (2000) The governance of inclusion: pathways to integration in the Objective One Programme for Merseyside. Paper for the Workshop on Urban Governance, ESRC Cities: Competitiveness and Cohesion Programme, Bristol, September.
31.
Mercer, C.C. (1999) Power, participation and development on Mount Kilimanjaro: the non-governmental sector of the state in Tanzania. Unpublished PhD thesis , Department of Geography, University of Liverpool.
32.
Mercer, C.C. (2002) The discourse of Maendeleo and the politics of women's participation on Mount Kilimanjaro, Development and Change, 33, pp. 101-127.
33.
Mohan, G. and Stokke, K. (2000) Participatory development and empowerment: the dangers of localism, Third World Quarterly, 21(2), pp. 247-268.
34.
Mollenkopf, J. (1996) How to study urban political power, in: R. T. Legates and F. Stout (Eds) The City Reader, pp. 219-228. London : Routledge.
35.
Murdoch, J. (2000) Space against time: competing rationalities in planning for housing, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 25, pp. 503-519.
36.
Musterd, S. and Ostendorf, W. (Eds) (1998) The Welfare State in Western Cities: Inequality and Exclusion in Western Cities. London : Routledge.
37.
Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (1995) Power and Participatory Development. London: Intermediate Technology Group.
38.
Oakley, P. (1991) Projects People. Geneva: ILO.
39.
Oxfam (2001) National strategy for neighbourhood renewal: a framework for consultation. A response from Oxfam GB (www.oxfam.org.uk/policy/papers/neighbour.htm ).
40.
Peck, J. (1995) Moving and shaking: business elites, state localism and urban privatism, Progress in Human Geography, 19, pp. 16-46.
41.
Peck, J. (2000) Jumping in, joining up and getting on, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 25(2), pp. 255-258.
42.
Power, A. (1999) Pool of resources, The Guardian , 3 February.
43.
Pretty, J. (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture , World Development, 23(8), pp.1247-1263.
44.
Raco, M. (2000) Assessing community participation in local development: lessons for the new urban policy, Political Geography, 19(5), pp. 573-599.
45.
Rhanema, M. (1992) Participation, in: W. Sachs (Ed.) The Development Dictionary, pp. 59-78. London : Zed Books.
46.
Robinson, J. (2003) Global and World Cities: a view from off the map , International Journal of Urban and Regional Research (forthcoming).
47.
Schrijvers, J. (1995) Participation and power: a transformative feminist research perspective, in: N. Nelson and S. Wright (Eds) Power and Participatory Development, pp. 40-55. London: Intermediate Technology Group.
48.
SocIal Exclusion Unit (2001) A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. London: Cabinet Office.
49.
Stiefel, M. and Wolfe, M. (Eds) (1994) A Voice for the Excluded: Popular Participation in Development: Utopia or Necessity?London : Zed Books, London.
50.
Stoker, G. and King, D. (Eds) (1996) Rethinking Local Democracy . London: Macmillan.
51.
Taylor, M. (2000) Communities in the lead: power, organisational capacity and social capital, UrbanStudies, 37(5/6), pp. 1019-1035.
52.
Tickell, A. and Peck, J. (1996) The return of Manchester men: men's words and deeds in the remaking of the local state, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 21, pp. 595-615.
53.
United Nations Development Programme (1993 ) World Development Report. New York: UNDP.
54.
Ward, K. (2000) A critique in search of a corpus: re-visiting governance and re-interpreting urban politics, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 25(4), pp. 169-185.
55.
Webster, N. (2000) Local organisations, political space and poverty alleviation. Paper for the Workshop on 'Local PoLitics and Democratisation in Developing Countries', University of Oslo, November.
56.
White, S. (1996) Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation, Development in Practice, 6(1), pp. 28-32.
57.
Woods, M. (2000) Parish pump politics. Paper for the Institute of British Geographers, Annual Conference, Brighton .
