Daniel Altschuler

The Spillover Effects of Participatory Governance: Evidence From Community-Managed Schools in Honduras and Guatemala

In contrast to more pessimistic studies, the authors find evidence that civic participation in one domain of public life can lead to more participation elsewhere, what they call spillover effects. The authors’ findings are based on a large survey—among the broadest in its class—of participants in community-managed schools throughout rural Honduras and Alta Verapaz, Guatemala. Despite various obstacles to spillovers, once initiated, participation can engender further participation. Many participants acquire and apply new skills, and some join new organizations. These spillover effects are stronger if participants receive state support and perceive the participatory arena to be democratic. The authors’ optimism, however, remains guarded: Even where spillovers abound, new groups’ autonomy and scope of action remain limited. In short, participatory governance is not a dead-end affair, but its capacity to strengthen civil society locally is not guaranteed.

The Impact of Patronage and Polarization on Participation and Program Survival

We now turn to the impact of patronage and polarization on two separate domains: (1) participation by parents in CMS and (2) the political survival of the programs. In terms of the former, patronage and polarization had common effects. They reduced participation in CMS in general, and consequently the likelihood of spillovers—though each through different mechanisms.

The Limits and Limitations of Spillovers

Throughout most of this book, we have considered spillovers as the key dependent variable of interest. This chapter examines spillovers as an independent variable vis-a-vis the objective of strengthening civil society and improving the quality of democracy. Do the high-spillover cases described in previous chapters achieve the goal of strengthening civil society and improving the quality of democracy?

The Rise of Participatory Governance

This chapter discusses the evolution of scholarly thought on PG and different methods for measuring its possible effects. The literature on participation generally posits the following causal chain: participation bolsters civil society which in turn strengthens democracy. The literature is very well developed regarding the second causal link in this chain (civil society → democracy). There is virtual agreement today following de Tocqueville, that strong civil society contributes to transitions to democracy (Collier 1999; Foweraker and Landman 1997; Linz and Stepan 1996a; O’Donnell and Schmitter 1993), to democratic consolidation (Forment 2003; Merkel 2004; Whitehead 1999), and to the quality of democracy (O’Donnell et al. 2004).

The Case Studies: Fieldwork, Methodological Issues, and New Clues

The quantitative analysis from the previous chapters demonstrated that a non-trivial set of participating parents experienced spillover effects. That analysis, however, lacked baseline data or control groups. In addition, the survey data could not address questions about the relationship between civil society and the quality of democracy. We still want to know, for instance, how community leaders engage with leaders in other communities and how autonomous rural civil society is from the state. This chapter and chapters 7 and 8 rely on fieldwork to fill in the gaps left by the survey data.

Obstacles to Spillovers

The previous two chapters have focused on the factors positively associated with spillover effects in communities and individuals. Yet, the quantitative and qualitative evidence has shown that most participants did not exhibit substantial spillovers. Therefore, crucial obstacles must exist that constrain spillovers across the entire population of participants.

Looking for Evidence: Survey Design, Methodological Issues, and Initial Clues

Our primary research goals were twofold: (1) to determine whether, and to what extent, participation in CMS programs can generate political capabilities, and (2) to identify the factors that facilitate or block the development of political capabilities. To achieve these goals, we utilized a mixed methods approach, combining quantitative analysis of participant surveys with ethnographic field research.

Exogenous Factors and Spillovers: The Role of the State

One of the most intriguing questions in studies of participation is whether the state can play a supportive role in stimulating civicness. Ideally, civic participation should remain mostly autonomous from state actions. The risks of too much state interference on civic groups are well known, ranging from stifling self-sufficiency to undermining political pluralism (see Jeong and Oh 2010). But in very poor communities, where levels of human and other forms of capital are very low, it might be naive to expect participation to emerge without state support.

Conclusion: The Spillover Effects of Participation

Initiatives to stimulate participation in governance and development have often prompted arguments from two extremes: unquestioning advocates and dismissive critics. This study has mapped out a middle path. Contrary to participation cheerleaders who assume that new venues for citizen participation will automatically strengthen civil society and democracy, we show how political context and problems in program implementation impinge on PG initiatives. But, unlike those who dismiss participation, we found evidence that PG initiatives can produce spillovers among a non-trivial minority of participants, thereby changing the civic and political life of certain citizens.

Introduction: The Promise of Participation

In the late 20th century, “participation” became a buzzword across the social sciences. Participation appeared in almost everyone’s list of solutions to almost everyone’s list of social ailments. Where democracy was procedural and insufficiently inclusive, participation could make democracy embrace new voices. Where citizens were too cynical, participation could help them appreciate government efforts or obtain tools to change the status quo. Where markets excluded small producers and buyers, expanding participation in resource mobilization (through microcredit) and enterprise formation (through cooperatives) could ameliorate market failures. Where development projects ignored local conditions and needs, more participation could create ownership among project beneficiaries, and, thus, greater sustainability. And if governance was too top-down, participation offered the promise of expanding the channels of communication between state officials and citizens.1