Escaping the Rhetoric: a Monglian Perspective on Participation in Rural
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Escaping the Rhetoric A Mongolian Perspective on Participation in Rural Development Projects _________________________ A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Applied Science in International Rural Development at Lincoln University by J.W. Berends _________________________ Lincoln University 2009 i ii Abstract of a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of M.Appl.Sc. Escaping the Rhetoric: A Mongolian Perspective on Participation in Rural Development Projects By J.W. Berends This thesis explores how stakeholders in Mongolian rural development projects interpret the concept of „participation‟. While previous research has provided an ethnographic snapshot of participation in rural development projects, none has yet focused on Mongolia – a post- socialist nation that receives significant amounts of foreign aid. To gain a holistic picture of „participation‟, this study explores: how stakeholders understand participation; what stakeholders perceive and prioritise as the benefits of participation; and which factors motivate or inhibit participation. This study‟s methodology involved an inductive, qualitative approach with a multiple case study design. Three Mongolia rural development projects, each with objectives of poverty- reduction and participation, were selected from three different development organisations and interviews were conducted with different stakeholder groups: development organisation managers, field staff, and local people of the project sites (participants and non-participants). The results of this study revealed a dominant or „Mongolian‟ understanding of „participation‟ existed across the various stakeholders: „Participation is local contributions of group labour and information for material benefits, within a top-down authoritarian structure (including local institutions)‟. This understanding arose from development organisations‟ emphasis on efficiency and sustainable results and local people engaging with the project as a normative livelihood strategy. In this study, given the incidence and nature of rural poverty, stakeholders prioritised the tangible benefits of participation over the intangible and linked empowerment to tangible outcomes. Development staff prioritised the longer-term tangible benefits (food security and income), and to ensure their sustainability sub-benefits were provided sequentially, mental capital, then physical capital, with social capital built naturally through the project‟s formal iii and informal activities. In contrast, local people prioritised the manifest tangible benefits, which initially meant the physical capital gifted by the project, and then later the material outcomes of the new livelihoods. While development staff envisioned intangible benefits as important in their own right, for Mongolian participants they were a gateway to the project‟s tangible outputs. Four prominent intangible benefits emerged: knowledge/mental investment, „power within‟, social connections, and involvement in groups – each uniquely valuable within the Mongolian context. The results also showed that the factors which shaped participation reflected the unique circumstances of rural Mongolia and each project‟s activities. Economic rationality appeared as the foundational incentive for participation, followed by social motivations that included: widespread, detailed, and positive information about the project; the perceived power, leadership, and organisational skills of the development organisation; a deep personal relationship between development staff and local people; and rurally-oriented seminars and workshops. The major barriers to „Mongolian‟ participation included: a lack of opportunity or incentive to participate; the current situation of poverty and unemployment; Mongolia‟s governance structures, culture, and history; the geography of isolation; the development organisation‟s procedures; and the dynamics of project „groups‟. Moreover, the results indicated that projects which require higher levels of local participation, i.e. decision-making, may face more fundamental obstacles because of the cultural value placed upon top-down, authoritarian leadership and a prevailing mentality of dependence. Based on these results, this study concludes that interpretations of participation arise out of field-level realities, and thus the level of participation incorporated into development projects needs to reflect the local culture, context, and history. Keywords: barriers, benefits, culture, development, empowerment, grass roots, participation, Mongolia, motivation, rural development, projects, social capital. iv Acknowledgments I would like to extend a special thanks to everyone who helped make this research journey possible. Although many people have contributed to making it a more enjoyable and enriching process, some deserve a special mention: Firstly, I extend my deep appreciation to the development organisations who granted me access to their projects. To all the people I interviewed, thank you for your time, openness, and hospitality, and for gifting me an insight into your lives. Also a special mention to Hashaa Baasandorj, whose translation skills and advice during the field research were invaluable. To my thesis supervisors, Dr Rupert Tipples and Dr Alison Kuiper, your encouragement, guidance, insights, and patience are deeply appreciated. Also, thank you to the other staff members of Lincoln University who have shown me much kindness and support over the last two years. I extend my sincere appreciation to NZAID for supporting this research through the granting of a Postgraduate Field Research Award, as well as to Lincoln University‟s Agricultural and Life Sciences Division for additional funding. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank my parents, Hans and Colleen, for the unconditional love and support they have given me throughout the years. I greatly appreciate your many sacrifices, prayers, and words of spiritual wisdom. Lastly, yet most importantly, I would like to deeply thank my wife, Candis, for proofreading the entire thesis, and sharing with me her comments and wisdom. But far more than this – thank you, Candis for your ever-present encouragement, continuing prayers, and self- sacrificing love. v Contents Page Declaration ii Abstract iii Acknowledgements v Contents vi List of Tables xi List of Figures xii Glossary xiii Abbreviations and Acronyms xv Chapter One: Introduction 1 1.1 Background: „Ямар хүн бэ?‟ 1 1.2 Introduction to the Research 2 1.3 Aims and Objectives 5 1.4 Structure of the Thesis 5 Chapter Two: Literature Review 8 2.1 Introduction 8 2.2 The Concept of „Participation‟ in Development 8 2.2.1 Historical Overview 8 2.2.2 A Paradigm Shift to „People-Centred‟ Development 11 2.2.3 Definitions of Participation 13 2.2.4 Conceptualising Local Participation in Development Projects 14 2.2.5 The Purpose of Participation 18 2.2.6 Participation and Empowerment 20 2.2.7 The Benefits of Participation 24 2.2.8 Motivations to Participate 26 2.2.9 Clarifying Participation 27 2.3 Quandaries of Participation 28 2.3.1 The Myth of a Homogenous Community 28 2.3.2 Pro-Local Ideologies 30 2.3.3 The Absorption of Participation into Existing Organisational Procedures 33 2.3.4 Uncertainty of Results-Based Evidence 35 2.3.5 Pertinent Case Studies 37 vi 2.4 Overview of Mongolia 43 2.4.1 Historical Overview 43 2.4.2 Current Context 48 2.4.3 Mongolian Culture 52 2.4.3.1 Centralised Structures of Authority 53 2.4.3.2 Social Organisation 57 2.4.4 Participation in Rural Mongolia Development Projects 60 2.5 Conclusion 65 Chapter Three: Methodology 66 3.1 Introduction 66 3.2 Research Rationale 66 3.3 Research Strategy 67 3.4 Research Methods 68 3.4.1 Pre-Field Work 68 3.4.2 Field Work 69 3.5 Data analysis 73 3.6 Ethics 74 3.7 Cross-Cultural Considerations 75 3.8 Limitations and Constraints 76 Chapter Four: Results 79 4.1 Introduction 79 4.2 Insights from Interviews on „Mongolian Culture‟ 79 4.3 Results of Case Study: Project A 90 4.3.1 Introduction and Background to Project A 90 4.3.2 How did Stakeholders in Project A Understand the Concept of „Participation‟? 91 4.3.2.1 The Practical Realities of Participation 91 4.3.2.2 Theoretical Understandings of Participation 96 4.3.2.3 The Language of Participation 101 4.3.3 What did Stakeholders in Project A Perceive as the Benefits of Participation? 103 4.3.3.1 Stakeholder Perceptions of the Benefits of Project A 103 4.3.3.1.1 Local Benefits 104 4.3.3.1.2 Non-Local Beneficiaries 107 4.3.3.2 Stakeholder Priorities of the Local Benefits in Project A 107 vii 4.3.4 Which Factors Influenced Participation within Project A? 111 4.3.4.1 Reasons Local People Participated in Project A 111 4.3.4.2 Barriers to Participation in Project A 115 4.3.4.2.1Project Staff 116 4.3.4.2.2 Local Participants 121 4.3.4.3 Barriers to Participation in Groups within Project A 123 4.4 Results of Case Study: „Project B‟ 126 4.4.1 Introduction and Background to Project B 126 4.4.2 How did Stakeholders in Project B Understand the Concept of „Participation‟? 127 4.4.2.1 The Practical Realities of Participation 127 4.4.2.2 Theoretical Understandings of Participation 132 4.4.2.3 The Language of Participation 136 4.4.3 What did Stakeholders in Project B Perceive as the Benefits of Participation? 138 4.4.3.1 Stakeholder Perceptions of the Benefits of Project B 138 4.4.3.2 Stakeholder Priorities of the Local Benefits in Project B 143 4.4.4 Which Factors Influenced Participation within