The Role of Stakeholders in Community Development free essay sample

Introduction Development, be it social, economic and/or environmental, has to be understood as an inherently political process of people claiming basic rights to manage the resources their lives depend on. In principle, everyone should be involved. Managing the inherent complexity requires a process of comprehensive engagement and negotiation with a broad range of stakeholders and the conscious and strategic acknowledgement of their divergent values and interests, needs and expectations. This paper emphasizes that dialogue and negotiation among stakeholders are the vehicles through which sustainable community development projects are established, implemented and monitored. Bottom-up CD programs which emanate from the grassroots level and closely involve community members are more successful than those that are developed top-down. Who is a stakeholder? There is not much disagreement on what kind of entity a stakeholder can be. The CD process consists of donors, target beneficiaries, partner agencies, government and non-governmental organizations. Bryson (1999) defines a stakeholder as ‘any person, group or organisation that can place a claim on an organization’s attention, resources or output, or is affected by that output’, which concurs with Freemans definition that: A stakeholder in an organization is (by definition) any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organizations objectives (1984). We will write a custom essay sample on The Role of Stakeholders in Community Development or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Thus, stakeholders are individuals or groups that may be positively or negatively affected by the project and those that can bring expertise or resources, each is of equal importance. How important are they? The importance of attending to stakeholders is emphasized in several literatures (Freeman 1984; Eade Williams, 1995; Hoff, 1998; Bryson 1999 etc. ). The authors explain that stakeholder support is needed to create and sustain winning coalitions and to ensure the long-term viability of organizations, policies, plans, and programs. Key stakeholders must be satisfied at least minimally, or public policies, organizations, communities, or even countries will fail. Stakeholder expectations and their satisfaction represent the basis against which CD efforts and activities are judged (Sautter, 1999). Satisfaction is achieved by being responsive to the needs and expectations of the stakeholders. These expectations are diverse and sometimes in conflict with each other, yet overlooking them could severely restrict CD work. Thus, the role of the stakeholder in the CD process presents obvious problems as each stakeholder carries an element of self-interest in the project, with different expectations and views on priorities. It is important to include stakeholders who represent the true diversity of the community; as Sautter (1999) states, if a project is not meeting the expectations of several interest groups, it probably should not exist at all. Stakeholder Engagement Any management activity is fundamentally a negotiation process between stakeholders that should be initiated from the start and maintained not only during the project/initiative but in the long term through appropriate organizational and institutional arrangements (Sanderson Kindon, 2004). CD projects engage people, organizations, NGOs and government and it is recognized that they have increased success if they promote stakeholder participation, coordination and cooperation and reflect consensus opinion (Kleemeier, 2000; Eguren, 2008). Newman (2008) and Eguren (2008) appreciate the fact that similar issues affect stakeholders differently. As such, managers need to constantly assess stakeholder significance in the light of individual issues, in order to guide the amount of time and resources allocated to them. Effective CD demands synchronous attention to the genuine interests of all appropriate stakeholders. Sautter (1999) emphasizes this premise and cautions that failure to retain participation of even a single primary stakeholder group could result in the failure. The idea of comprehensively identifying and accommodating stakeholder values and interests with the ultimate aim of agreeing on a common agenda toward sustainability is a complex process and requires consensus building (Weisbord Janoff, 2000). This does not simply mean realizing that multiple stakeholders have different needs and values, but to sincerely try to understand and respect their differences. Therefore, as Simpson et al. , (2003) state, successful intervention of projects depends not only on genuine stakeholder participation but strong and effective management, as well as skilled and committed staff. CD project workers need to have the ability to recognize and respond effectively to a disparate set of entities. Consulting with, educating and assessing stakeholder motivation is important so that their influence doesn’t potentially conflict with and undermine the project’s goals. Weisbord and Janoff (2000) emphasize that subjects involved in CD, particularly the CD organizations, must thus develop and use skills and capacities for productive multi-stakeholder collaboration. These should include: systematic thinking, cultural sensitivity, trust building and mutual understanding and developing process to build social capital and strong multi-stakeholder networks. Planners need to adapt to diverse communication styles, changing priorities and different values in a non-judgmental, non-threatening and non-defensive manner and recognize that there is more than one way, one theory, and one solution (Newman, 2008). Stakeholder Strategies: the Bottom-up Approach The ‘bottom-up’ approach posits a broad range of stakeholders actively engaged in development action: each stakeholder is different, with its own interests, missions, procedures, and ways of deploying power in development action. Recognizing the multiplicity of the subjects of development is, as many authors believe, especially crucial for improving bottom-up practice (Kleemeier, 2000; Sanderson Kindon, 2004; Newman, 2008). CD projects planned ‘top-down’ do not allow for participation of all stakeholders, namely community members. For example, Simpson et al. (2003) reports on their project: ‘the nature of the community’s participation was regulated by the government’s agenda for the project, rather than by the community’s own needs, and individuals outside the immediate steering committee consequently felt isolated from decision-making and ownership of the project. The failure of traditional top-down development approaches was attributed to the lack of involvement of most of the potential beneficiaries and led observers of, and participants in, CD to advocate for an approach that included as many stakeholders as possible. A shift in the approach to community developmen t (CD) has afforded more local communities the opportunity to participate in processes to articulate their expectations and to prioritize their needs (Ife, 1995). The premise behind this approach is that local people need to fully participate and contribute towards addressing their own problems in their own communities. It is only out of the community’s own efforts that a change can be realized, because they are better informed of their needs and are the best sources of the answers to these needs. This creates an enabling atmosphere for them and enables participation in the implementation and the monitoring of the development. The aim of community participation is the empowerment and capacity building of people, which allows beneficiaries of projects to choose their alternatives. Community participation in development initiatives leads to self-transformation and self-reliance, thereby ensuring sustainability of programs and projects. It is easy to conclude that supporting local bottom-up processes brings greater and faster impact regarding the development of marginalized communities compared with highly politicized and abstract top-down approaches. The relevance of bottom-up participatory approaches has increased as organisations work to scale up their impact by undertaking projects which aim to build capacity or have an emphasis on developing local advocacy (Kotaval; 2005; Sautter, 1999) . Participatory aspects that enhance CD projects have been identified by several authors. Laverack (2001) provides a useful overview of the ‘operational domains’ of community empowerment, which he states is central to CD. He highlights that without participation, community empowerment and thus development would not occur. Diamond (2004) refers to participatory development as the co-operation, mobilization of communities or involving communities in the execution of development plans. Moreover, this approach emphasizes the importance of the inclusion of people, partnerships, the sharing of power and responsibility and empowerment. It views the communities as people with potential as well as capacity to manage their own development and above all encourages involvement of all stakeholders relevant to the development process (Simpson et al, 2003). Healthy, self-reliant communities are, as Weisbord and Janoff (2000) assert, built on connections stimulated by the empowering of individuals and groups. The participatory, bottom-up approach allows: Understanding the context If all stakeholders are consulted, a thorough understanding of the context of the CD project is gained. Resources acquired through CD do not benefit all segments of the community equally, depending on gender, age etc. , and it is imperative that CD planners take into account the interplay of the society and local community gender dynamics, culture, and power structures to accommodate for this (Ward et al. , 2008). Creativity Diversity of stakeholders groups and demographics allows for more creativity to problem solving and focuses on the strengths of the group. They often contain the seeds for new solutions. Placing value on local knowledge and the context in which it has been produced provides an avenue for establishing the trust relations and collaboration that are the basis for a successful development partnership and process (Sanderson Kindon, 2004). Through designing a process which draws on the strengths of multiple approaches, each bringing with them their own advantages and constraints in these ways, the final result is likely to be much richer. Relationship and Trust Building Involving all stakeholders allows them to communicate and build beneficial relationships and trust. Social capital theory suggests that people achieve more by cooperating, thus stakeholder engagement is a major catalyst for the creation of social capacity and capital. Putnam (1993) suggests that social capital is built through the trust we develop by working together and Cox (1995) talks about the necessity of trust in order for collaboration to occur as â€Å"trust leads to cooperation†. These relationships create a learning space, particularly for polarized dialogue, and exposes and challenges the discourses and mindsets of many participants. Empowerment and Capacity Building Bottom-up approaches are more socially inclusive, build on local strengths, and promote leadership, as well as ownership and accountability, of both problems and solutions (Simpson et al. , 2003). This leads to empowerment and builds capacity which enables the community to carry out the plan in the absence of the consultant, ensuring sustainability (Laverack, 2001). Stakeholders in contest – Limitations to the Bottom-up Approach The relationship between CD projects and providers, namely NGO’s, and their donors, illustrates the way in which stakeholder’s interests can conflict and jeopardise the bottom-up process. The structures and major players operating within the development arena were traditionally formed as a top-down system. However, the transformed focus of development toward a bottom-up approach has come into tension with this top-down structure; participation from the bottom-up is difficult when projects are planned at higher levels (Simpson et al. , 2003). As the general structure of development actions has historically been established as top-down, it is no surprise that top-down notions continue to be reflected in practice. CD providers usually come under pressure to achieve the goals of their donors (who usually work according to Western business principles) and are required to maintain appropriate upward accountability. However, as Simpson et al. (2003) point out, the recipient organisations and communities may not necessarily have the same goals as the donors. Thus, those projects heavily dependent on meeting the requirements of their donors probably won’t develop good relationships with, or meet the requirements of, the communities involved, which will undermine the CD process itself. The power imbalance between â€Å"funders† and â€Å"providers† of CD projects has been identified as a significant problem as it is likely that CD planners will be pressured to implement programs out of step with local needs (Davies, 1997). More consultation with and education of donors by their recipients is required to allow donors to better understand the nature of their project and their relationships with communities (Davies, 1997). CD providers must develop the capacity and professionalism to be able to challenge their donors to construct their CD project in such a way that the interests of the recipient communities are at the forefront and have a more active role in defining their own concepts of civil society (Weisbord and Janoff, 2000). Flexibility within the project that allows incorporation of feedback from participatory evaluation needs to complement ongoing work, linking its aims nd methods to that of the original project, including deep consideration of the power relations of all those involved in the project. It is only through this openness, and an ability to challenge a program of work and integrate learning directly into practice, that stakeholder interests will be balanced effectively over the long-term. Conclusion CD is a mediation process between real and perceived conflicts of interest among stakeholders in a community. Tensions among development stakeholders exist inherently alongside the commo n desire to improve the well-being of disadvantaged people. There is a broad range of stakeholders actively engaged in development action: each stakeholder is different, with its own interests, missions, procedures, and ways of deploying power in development action, their values, interests, participation and power dynamics are critical factors in determining the outcome of CD. It is therefore vital to consider them, not just in the planning phases of projects, but through its entire course, to ensure projects remain relevant and coherent to the context in which they are being implemented (Simpson et al. 2003). However, connections and interactions among stakeholders are dynamic and inherently problematic, and must be recognized and negotiated to enable existing understandings and ways of working to be challenged and new ways to be trialed and adopted (Quarles van Ufford ,1993). Accommodating collective action through participative, bottom-up approaches acknowledges the complexity of stakeholder interactions and creates a platform for communities to develop. References Bryson, J. M. (1999). A Strategic Planning Process for Public and Non-Profit Organisations. in J. M.