Andrea Cornwall

Whose Voices? Whose Choices? Reflections on Gender and Participatory Development

Abstract Efforts to promote participation in projects, programs and policy consultation would appear to offer the prospect of giving everyone who has a stake a voice and a choice. But community-driven development, participatory planning and other fine-sounding initiatives that make claims of “full participation” and “empowerment” can turn out to be driven by particular gendered interests, leaving the least powerful without voice or much in the way of choice. Bringing a gender perspective to bear on the practice of participation in development may assist in identifying strategies for amplifying voice and access to decision making of those who tend to be marginalized or excluded by mainstream development initiatives. Yet “gender”––like “participation”––has multiple meanings. In this article, I explore some of the tensions, contradictions and complementarities between “gender-aware” and “participatory” approaches to development. I suggest that making a difference may come to depend on challenging embedded assumptions about gender and power, and on making new alliances out of old divisions, in order to build more inclusive, transformatory practice.

What do buzzwords do for development policy? a critical look at ‘participation’, ‘empowerment’ and ‘poverty reduction’

Abstract In the fast-moving world of development policy, buzzwords play an important part in framing solutions. Todays development orthodoxies are captured in a seductive mix of such words, among which ‘participation’, ‘empowerment’ and ‘poverty reduction’ take a prominent place. This paper takes a critical look at how these three terms have come to be used in international development policy, exploring how different configurations of words frame and justify particular kinds of development interventions. It analyses their use in the context of two contemporary development policy instruments, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (prsps) and the Millennium Development Goals (mdgs). We show how words that once spoke of politics and power have come to be reconfigured in the service of todays one-size-fits-all development recipes, spun into an apoliticised form that everyone can agree with. As such, we contend, their use in development policy may offer little hope of the world free of poverty that they are used to evoke.

Putting the ‘rights‐based approach’ to development into perspective

This paper seeks to unravel some of the tangled threads of contemporary rights talk. For some, the grounding of rights‐based approaches in human rights legislation makes them distinctively different to others, lending the promise of re‐politicising areas of development work—particularly, perhaps, efforts to enhance participation in development, that have become domesticated as they have been ‘mainstreamed’ by powerful institutions like the World Bank. Others complain that like other fashions, the label ‘rights‐based approach’ has become the latest designer item to be seen to be wearing, and has been used to dress up the same old development. We pose a series of questions about why rights have come to be of interest to international development actors, and explore the implications of different versions and emphases, looking at what their strengths and shortcomings may come to mean for the politics and practice of development.

Dislocating masculinity : comparative ethnographies

This book draws upon anthropology, feminism and postmodernism to offer a penetrating and challenging study of how gender operates. The book offers a radical critique of much of the recent writing on and by men and raises important questions about emodiment, agency and the variety of masculine styles.

Men, masculinity and 'Gender in Development'

Articles and training materials on gender issues always talk about women. This focus is logical given the main goal of fostering the involvement of women as equal partners in the development process. The problems faced by men are rarely considered. Moreover, gender training, one of the core strategies of gender and development practice, rarely addresses mens experiences as men. By ignoring the complexities of the male experience, characterizing men as the problem, and continuing to focus upon women as the oppressed, development initiatives attempting to be gender-aware can fail to effectively address the issues of equity and empowerment. The author focuses upon the implications of recent work in feminist theory and questions of masculinity, stressing the need to consider the complex and variable nature of gender identities, and to work with men in exploring the constraints of dominant models of masculinity.

Deconstructing Development Discourse: Buzzwords and Fuzzwords

Writing from diverse locations, contributors critically examine some of the key terms in current development discourse. Why should language matter to those who are doing development? Surely, there are more urgent things to do than sit around mulling over semantics? But language does matter. Whether emptied of their original meaning, essentially vacuous, or hotly contested, the language of development not only shapes our imagined worlds, but also justifies interventions in real peoples lives. If development buzzwords conceal ideological differences or sloppy thinking, then the process of constructive deconstruction makes it possible to re-examine what have become catch-all terms like civil society and poverty reduction, or bland aid-agency terms such as partnership or empowerment. Such engagement is far more than a matter of playing word games. The reflections included here raise major questions about how we think about development itself. The 30 contributors to this volume include Cassandra Balchin, Srilatha Batliwala, Robert Chambers, Neera Chandhoke, Ben Fine, Shalmali Guttal, Pablo Alejandro Leal, Islah Jad, Thandika Mkandawire, John Samuel, John Toye, and Peter Uvin. Originally published as a special double issue of Development in Practice journal, the book is vital reading for all concerned with a deeper understanding international development policy and practice.

Rethinking 'citizenship' in the postcolony

Abstract This paper argues for an approach to researching citizenship and democracy that begins not from normative convictions but from everyday experiences in particular social, cultural and historical contexts. The paper starts with a consideration of the ways in which the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘citizenship’ have been used in the discourses and approaches taken within mainstream studies of citizenship and democracy, drawing attention to some of the conceptual blind spots that arise. We call for more attention to be paid to contextual understandings of the politics of everyday life, and to locating state, ngo and donor rhetorics and programmes promoting ‘active citizenship’ and ‘participatory governance’ within that politics. It is this kind of understanding, we suggest, that, by revealing the limits of the normativities embedded in these discourses, can provide a more substantive basis for rethinking citizenship from the perspectives of citizens themselves.

Historical perspectives on participation in development

Abstract Participation in development came to be popularised in the 1990s as a novel, common-sense way to address a range of development ills. Its institutionalisation over the course of that decade in the discourses, if not the practices, of many mainstream development organisations promised a new approach that would give ‘the poor’ more voice and choice in development. This article traces precedents for this more recent wave of enthusiasm for participation back to the colonial era. Highlighting the culturally specific notions of democracy and governance that are embedded in the various permutations that discourses of participation have taken over this period, it questions whether the limited institutional recipes purveyed by northern development agencies can ever produce the benefits that are claimed of participation in development.

From ‘gender equality and ‘women’s empowerment’ to global justice: reclaiming a transformative agenda for gender and development

The language of ‘gender equality’ and ‘women’s empowerment’ was mobilised by feminists in the 1980s and 1990s as a way of getting women’s rights onto the international development agenda. Their efforts can be declared a resounding success. The international development industry has fully embraced these terms. From international NGOs to donor governments to multilateral agencies the language of gender equality and women’s empowerment is a pervasive presence and takes pride of place among their major development priorities. And yet, this article argues, the fact that these terms have been eviscerated of conceptual and political bite compromises their use as the primary frame through which to demand rights and justice. Critically examining the trajectories of these terms in development, the article suggests that if the promise of the post-2015 agenda is to deliver on gender justice, new frames are needed, which can connect with and contribute to a broader movement for global justice.

The Politics of Rights—Dilemmas for Feminist Praxis: an introduction

Abstract Since the late 1990s, development institutions have increasingly used the language of rights in their policy and practice. This special issue on feminist perspectives on the politics of rights explores the strategies, tensions and challenges associated with ‘rights advocacy’ in a variety of settings. Articles on the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, East and South Asia explore the dilemmas that arise for feminist praxis in these diverse locations, and address the question of what rights can contribute to struggles for gender justice. They examine the intersection of formal rights—whether international human rights conventions, constitutional rights or national legislation—with the everyday realities of women in settings characterised by entrenched gender inequalities and poverty, plural legal systems and diverse cultural norms that can constitute formidable obstacles to realising rights. They suggest that these sites of struggle can create new possibilities and meanings through a politics animated by demands for social and gender justice.