Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Using a qualitative approach, based on extensive fieldwork and surveys, this article examines how participatory institutions in Nepal perform and affect local planning. The evidence points to mixed outcomes: citizen participation can improve local planning, especially with regard to achieving planning efficacy and equity; and at the same time, it sometimes yields no such effects or may produce negative effects including raising expectations, skewing priorities and producing faulty compartmentalization, besides adding to administrative complexities. This is because the anticipated benefits of citizen participation are strongly embedded in local, socio-political realities such as the degree of power exercised by the local elites, mainly politicians, a collusive nexus among them, prior history of citizen mobilization and empowerment and the degree to which citizens and civil society organizations are able to exercise their agency to countervail those forces.

Keywords

Citizen participation local planning planning efficacy positive and negative outcomes Nepal

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

C. F.

Bell

M. E.

Brown

(2002). Building civic infrastructure: Implementing community partnership grant programmes in South Africa. Public Administration and Development, 22(4), 293–302.

Agarwal

(2001). Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: An analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development, 29(10), 1623–1648.

Agarwal

(2010). Gender and green governance: The political economy of women’s presence within and beyond community forestry. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Agrawal

(1999). Decentralization in Nepal: A comparative analysis. Oakland: ICS Press.

Armony

A. C.

(2004). The dubious link civic engagement and democratization. California: Stanford University Press.

Asian Development Bank. (2014). Completion report, Nepal governance support program (Subprogram 1; Unpublished). Manila: Author.

Baiocchi

(2003). Participation, activism, and politics: The Porto Alegre experiment. In Fung

Wright

(Eds), Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance (pp. 45–76). London and New York: Verso.

Blair

(2000). Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local government in six countries. World Development, 28(1), 21–39.

Box

(1998). Citizen governance: Leading American communities into the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

10.

Brinkerhoff

Goldsmith

(2000). Participation in macroeconomic policy: Experience and implications for poverty reduction strategies. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

11.

Carter Centre. (2014). Local governance in Nepal: Public participation and perception. Retrieved 21 October 2014, from http://www.cartercenter.org/news/pr/nepal-022814.html

12.

Chambers

(1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. London: Longman.

13.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five approaches. London: SAGE Publications.

14.

Crook

R. C.

Manor

(1998). Democracy and decentralisation in South Asia and West Africa: Participation, accountability and performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Department for International Development (DFID). (2006). Unequal citizens, gender, caste and ethnic exclusion in Nepal summary report (Report No. 37966). Kathmandu: DFID Nepal. ISBN 99946-890-0-2.

16.

Fox

(2007). Accountability politics: Power and voice in rural Mexico. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

17.

Freedman

Neupane

B. D.

Adhikari

Thapa

M. M.

Thapa

N. S.

Pradhan

K. M.

. (2012). Focused evaluation local governance and community development program (LGCDP). (Unpublished). Kathmandu.

18.

Fung

(2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66–75.

19.

Gaventa

Barrett

(2010). So what difference does it make? Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement (IDS Working Paper 347). Brighton, U.K.: University of Sussex.

20.

Gaventa

Barrett

(2012). Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. World Development, 40(12), 2399–2410.

21.

Gerston

L. N.

(2002). Public policy making in a democratic society: A guide to civic engagement. New York: Centre for Civic Education.

22.

Government of Nepal. (1991). The constitution of the kingdom of Nepal. Kathmandu: Nepal Law Commission.

23.

(2011). Civic engagement through participatory budgeting in China: Three different logics at work. Public Administration and Development, 31(2), 122–133.

24.

Heller

(2001). Moving the state: The politics of democratic decentralization in Kerala, South Africa, and Porto Alegre. Politics and Society, 29(1), 131–163.

25.

Heller

Harilal

K. N.

Chaudhuri

(2007). Building local democracy: Evaluating the impact of decentralization in Kerala, India. World Development, 35(4), 626–648.

26.

Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI). (2014, October). DFID’s approach to anti-corruption and its impact on the poor (Report No. 37). Retrieved 5 November 2014, from http://icai.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/DFIDs-Approach-to-Anti-Corruption-and-its-Impact-on-the-Poor-FINAL.pdf

27.

Inlogos. (2009). Assessment of village development committee governance and the use of block grants. Kathmandu: UNDP.

28.

Irvin

R. A.

Stansbury

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

29.

John

M. S.

Chathukulam

(2003). Measuring decentralization: The case of Kerala (India). Public Administration and Development, 23, 347–360.

30.

Kabeer

(2005). Gender equality and women’s empowerment: A critical analysis of the third millennium development goal. Gender & Development, 13(1), 13–24.

31.

Kelly

(2011). Stock taking of fiscal decentralization policies (Nepal): Consolidated Report (Unpublished). Kathmandu.

32.

King

C. S.

Feltey

K. M.

Susel

B. O.

(1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317–326.

33.

Koirala

(2011). Stock taking of fiscal decentralization policies, expenditure (Unpublished). Kathmandu.

34.

Krishna

(2003). Partnerships between local governments and community-based organisations: Exploring the scope for synergy. Public Administration and Development, 23(4), 361–371.

35.

Local Governance and Community Development Program (LGCDP). (2013). Selected case studies from around Nepal (Unpublished). Kathmandu.

36.

Local Governance and Community Development Program (LGCDP). (2013, June–2014, May). Progress and achievement of citizen awareness centre and ward citizen forum (Unpublished). Kathmandu.

37.

Malik

Waglé

(2002). Civic engagement and development: Introducing the issues. Retrieved 12 September 2013, from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN006234.pdf

38.

Mallik

(2013). Local and community governance for peace and development in Nepal. Bonn: German Development Institute.

39.

Mansuri

Rao

(2004). Community-based and-driven development: A critical review. World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), 1–39.

40.

Mansuri

Rao

(2013). Localizing development: Does participation work? Washington, DC: World Bank.

41.

Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (MOFALD). (2013). A report on the analysis of District Development Committee’s board meeting of fiscal year 2068/69 (Unpublished). Kathmandu.

42.

Mohanty

(2010). Contesting development, reinventing democracy: Grassroots social movements in India. In Thompson

Tapscott

(Eds), Citizenship and social movements: Perspectives from the global South (pp. 239–260). London and New York: Zed.

43.

Mohanty

Thompson

Coelho

V. S.

(2011). Mobilising the state? Social mobilisation and state interaction in India, Brazil and South Africa (IDS Working Papers 2011(359), 01–39). Brighton, U.K.: Communication Unit, Institute of Development Studies.

44.

Moynihan

D. P.

(2003). Normative and instrumental perspectives on public participation: Citizen summits in Washington, DC. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(2), 164–188.

45.

Nabatchi

(2012). Putting the ‘public’ back in public values research: Designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 699–708.

46.

Nepal South Asia Centre. (1998). Nepal human development report 1998. Kathmandu: Author.

47.

Neshkova

M. I.

Guo

(2011). Public participation and organizational performance: Evidence from state agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 267–288.

48.

Osmani

S. R.

(2007). Participatory governance: An overview of issues and evidence. In United Nations (Ed.), Building trust through civic engagement (pp. 9–55). New York: United Nations Publications.

49.

Ostrom

(1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

50.

Pandeya

G. P.

(2015). Does citizen participation in local government decision-making contribute to strengthening local planning and accountability systems? An empirical assessment of stakeholders’ perceptions in Nepal. International Public Management Review, 16(1), 67–98.

51.

Platteau

Abraham

(2002). Participatory development in the presence of endogenous community imperfections. Journal of Development Studies, 39(2), 104–136.

52.

Putnam

R. D.

(1993). Making democracy work: Civic tradition in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

53.

Roberts

N. C.

(2008). The age of direct citizen participation. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe.

54.

Rocha-Menocal

Sharma

(2008). Joint evaluation of citizens’ voice and accountability: Synthesis report. London: Department for International Development.

55.

Sen

(1999). Development as freedom. New York: Alfred Knopf.

56.

Speer

(2012). Participatory governance reform: A good strategy for increasing government responsiveness and improving public services? World Development, 40(12), 2379–2398.

57.

Ueli Meier

Acharya

H. P.

Shrestha

. (2009). End evaluation of the decentralised local governance support programme (DLGSP) in Nepal. Oslo: NORAD.

58.

United Nations (UN). (2008). People matter civic engagement in public governance. World Public Sector Report 2008. New York: Author.

59.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (1993). Human development report 1993. New York: Author.

60.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2014). Nepal human report 2014 beyond geography unlocking human potential. Kathmandu: National Planning Commission. ISBN: 978-9937-8874-0-3.

61.

World Bank. (2005). World development report, 2006, equity and development (Report no. 322204). Washington DC: Author.

62.

World Bank. (2011). Evaluation of participatory budgeting and its relationship with results-oriented budgeting (Report No. 62588). Washington, DC: Author.

63.

Yang

K. F.

Callahan

(2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressure, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 249–264.

64.

Yang

Pandey

S. K.

(2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review, 71(6), 880–892.

65.

Yin

R. K.

(1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

Does Citizen Participation Improve Local Planning? An Empirical Analysis of Stakeholders’ Perceptions in Nepal

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References