Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process….

Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process at Local

Level: The Case of Shebe Sombo Woreda, Jimma Zone, Oromia National Regional State
A Research Paper Presented By:
Jibril Jemal Shifa
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Obtaining the Degree of Masters of Arts in Urban
and Regional Development Planning

College of Social Sciences and Humanities Department of Geography and Environmental

Studies, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia. (June, 2019)

Members of the examining committee:

Dr. Tebarak Lika (external examiner)
Mr. Tesfaye Debela (Internal examiner)
Dr. Wondefrash Genet (Supervisor)

Abstract

Community participation is a concept meant to ensure that community members are an integral
part of processes that determine their destiny in relation to their development needs. It is a
means of empowering people by developing their skills and abilities to enable them to negotiate
and make appropriate decisions for their development. However, community participation is not
without its challenges. This study was conducted in Shebe Sombo Woreda of Jimma Zone to
examine the extent of community participation in development project planning process at local
level. The study employed A case study research design and methodological triangulation to
gather data: In depth interviews, focus group discussions, observations and document review. In
Shebe Sombo Woreda, development projects initiated by the Woreda officials and community
participation appear to be an afterthought. The study findings revealed that community
participation is minimal in development projects. Local people are just passive participants of
the development projects who are told what to do. The local people’s contributions and
influences are sidelined in the planning and decision making processes. The planning approach
employed seems to be more of a “local top-down” approach rather than a truly participatory
one. Participation is used only as a means of extracting information from the community, rather
than as a vehicle for involving local people in decision making. The community has initiated the
development projects, be involved in all stages of the project, be aware of the implemented
projects, provided with good leadership, provided with transparent information and further
requested that, they should be consulted and provided feedback on the progress of the
development projects.It is therefore recommended that, the Regional government should support
the community in all levels to ensure a strong commitment to participation in their development
projects.
Key terms: participation, community participation, development project, planning process, local
level
Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process…. 4

1. Introduction

Community participation has become central to development projects as a means to seek

sustainability and equity, particularly for the poor (Rifkin and Kangere, 2003). The concept of
community participation influences decisions that affect people’s lives and is an avenue for
empowering people (Lentfer, 2011). McIvor (2000) states that community participation is of
relevance in that people have a say in the conception of the project and accept it as their own
effort. This approach becomes effective when local people are actively participating in all stages
of development.
Reid (2001) points out that if people at the grassroots are deeply participating in the work of
community development they achieve more results that develop in a more holistic and beneficial
way. This means that when people participate for the common good of a shared goal, they are
bound to benefit from it. Ellis and Biggs (2001) argue that development emphasizes not just on
community participation but also on governance with particular emphasis on democratic
decentralization. Decentralization has become a particular mode of development administration,
not only to accelerate development, but also to develop administrative arrangements for planning
and managing development programmes and projects (Conveyors, 1990).
Many developing countries have embarked on decentralization of government and development
structures among others, to promote democratic governance and community participation in
development (Hussein, 2004). Active community participation is essential to empower and bring
about sustainable community development at the grassroots level. Research in the field
(Chambers, 2007; De Beer & Swanepoel, 1998; Estralla et al., 2000; Green, 2007; Rahman,
1993) clearly indicates that participating communities achieve greater citizen satisfaction in their
community.
Following the collapse of the socialist regime (the Derg) in 1991, the current government of
Ethiopia, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE), has embarked on
decentralization policy to legitimize the newly formed regional states and empower the citizens
and/or country’s ethnic groups (Galshberg & Winkler, 2003) and devolve power to a local level
following the 1995 constitution of the country (Garcia & Rajkumar, 2008; Gebre-Egziabher &
Berhanu, 2007). It was intended to open the way for regional and local governments and local
communities, to take greater responsibility, financial and otherwise, for managing their own
affairs including planning and management of development projects (Dufera, 2005; Garcia &
Rajkumar, 2008). Recent studies note acute shortage of skilled manpower as a critical challenge
of the implementation of Ethiopian local governance policy (Ayele, 2009). Local autonomy
increases independence and flexibility in decision and operation. Thus, when the required level
of decision-making power is absent at the local level it affects the performance of the local
governments which in turn limit community participation (USAID, 2005).
Since Woreda level decentralization embarked on a couple of decades ago, a lot of development
projects have been carried out in Shebe Sombo Woreda, but they could not meet their intended
objectives. Some of the projects were abandoned while some of those completed are in
deplorable state because they were not utilized by the end users or could not be maintained. The
reason for these could be attributed to the failure of local governments to participate the
community in the need analysis, selection of the projects, implementation and monitoring phases
of the development projects. As a consequence of this most of the projects have failed and the
Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process…. 5

others in operation are unsustainable because there was no sense of ownership from the side of
the local community. In Ethiopia community participation in development projects is an
emerging contemporary phenomenon whose success and challenges are not well documented.
That's why; there is lack of empirical evidence to illustrate the extent to which community
participation is implemented in development projects at local level. This is the gap which served
as a thrust for this study. The general objective of the study was to examine the extent of
community participation in development project planning process in Shebe Sombo Woreda. The
following research questions were formulated to address this general objective.
1. How do local people understand community participation in context of development
projects?
2. To what extent do local people participate in decision making process concerning
development projects?
3. What are the causes of poor community participation in development projects planning
process?
2. Theoretical Framework of the Study
There are basically two schools of thought in this study. The first school of thought contends that
people are capable of identifying their needs and aspirations in their own way. This refers to
Participatory Development. The second school of thought contends that Arnstein's Ladder of
Citizen Participation Responding to the gap between the desires of local communities, and
government programs, Sherry Arnstein wrote A Ladder of Citizen Participation to "encourage a
more enlightened dialogue".
Participatory Development: Participatory development has been in the development discourse
since the 1960s, and it emphasizes the need for local people or the “rural poor” as Chambers
(1997) puts it, to participate in all the cycles of development from design, formulation, planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Participatory development emerged with the sole
purpose of empowering the local people in rural communities who were heavily marginalized by
top-down approaches and heavily centralized systems of governance. Kapoor (2002) stresses that
participatory development ostensibly entails discarding neo-colonial tendencies, western-centric
values and centralized decision making processes. In his analysis Kapoor (2002) adds that
participatory development stands for a more inclusive and ‘bottom up’ approach which aims to
promote local empowerment and ownership of development programmes.
Participatory development is supposed to reflect a bottom-up approach whereby local people are
responsible for their own development programs; from identification to implementation without
any outside influence. The community development projects should reflect the people’s major
concerns and capabilities. This notion is supported by Chambers (2002) that “we” the outsiders
"participate in “their” project not “they” in “ours”. This clearly brings out the importance of the
project beneficiaries to actively take part in their projects, local people are urged to clearly spell
out what their main priorities and ideas are, so as to create projects that can respond to their
needs.
The second school of thought is Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation. Originally developed
in the 1960s, it retains considerable contemporary relevance. Arnstein’s point of departure is the
Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process…. 6

citizen on the receiving end of projects or program. The setting of objectives is constrained by
the level of participation being allowed in any one process. According to Arnstein (1969), the
bottom rungs of the ladder are (1) manipulation and (2) therapy. These two rungs describe the
levels of non-participation that have been contributed by some to substitute for genuine
participation. Their objective is not to enable people to participate in planning or conducting
programs, but to enable power holders to educate or cure the participation. At the middle of the
ladder there is Rungs (3) informing and (4) consultation progress to levels of “tokenism” that
allow the have nots to hear and have a voice.
But under this condition they lack the power to ensure that their views are headed by the
powerful. Rung (5) placation is simply a higher level of tokenism because the ground rules
allow the have-nots to advice, but retain for the power holders the continued right to decide.
Further up the ladder are levels of citizen power with increasing degrees of decision making
clout, citizens can entering into a (6) partnership that enables them to negotiate and engage in
trade-offs with traditional power holders. At the topmost rungs, (7) delegated power and (8)
citizen control where have–not citizens obtain the majority of decision-making seats, or full
managerial power. The study shall be guided by these two main theories.
3. Methods
The research strategy used in this study is case study design. The researcher made use of this
research strategy because as Flick (2009) states the term “case” is rather broadly understood that
takes persons, social communities for example families, organizations and institutions (such as a
nursing home) as the subject of a case analysis. This design is appropriate for this study that
solely aimed to acquire information of rural communities and their participation in development
projects. The study used a qualitative research approach. Qualitative research makes it easier for
the researcher to flexibly explore the field with the aim of assessing specific information to come
up with accurate results. Babbie (1999) stresses a few key features that are visible in qualitative
research, and these features are; research is conducted in the natural setting; the primary aim is
an in-depth understanding of the actors and events and the focus is rather on the process rather
than the outcome.
The study has employed non probability sampling design, whereby purposive sampling method
was used. Three (3) development projects namely farmers training center, community water
supply and rural road construction connecting kebele administration with Woreda and 45
respondents; 40 respondents from community members and 5 respondents from Woreda officials
were purposefully selected. The purpose of sampling is to select cases whose study will
illuminate the questions under the study (Patton, 1990). Merriam (1988) states that the selection
of a purposeful sample is not based on the number of respondents but rather on the potential of
each person to contribute to the development of insight and understanding of the phenomenon.
Data collection took place from 15 to 25 March 2019 at two rural kebeles of Shebe Sombo
Woreda namely Sombo Darru and Yanga Dogama by using qualitative research approaches.
Both primary and secondary data were used. The data were collected through in-depth
interviews, focus group discussions, physical project observation and document reviews and
analyzed using thematic analysis as it is descriptive presentation of data. Thematic analysis
allowed the researcher to discuss common themes from the data gathered on the participation of
Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process…. 7

rural communities in development projects. It offers an accessible and theoretically flexible

approach to analyzing qualitative data.
4. Results and Discussions
4.1. Understanding the Concept of Community Participation in Development Projects

Community participation is viewed as bringing out the importance of community members as

actively contributing to and influencing the development process to best suit their needs (United
Nations, 2001). The study findings indicate that the understanding and definition of community
participation is complex and tends to confuse many people. Individuals understand the meaning
and the concept of community participation differently. Responses taken from the conducted
interviews with community members indicate that community participation is:
 about people working together in development projects
 about contribution of money or cost sharing and,
 is about provision of labor and materials in development projects
Therefore, the respondents of this study view working together, some financial and material
contribution and labor assistance as fundamentals of community participation. This may be seen
as participation “as a means” to get certain activities accomplished using cheap labor, materials
and cost sharing from community members. Such finding has also been observed by Burkey
(1993) who points out that until recently the notion of participation as a means to achieve
effective development, still dominate in rural development practices. Effective participation aims
at participation as an end to empower the community members to take charge of their own
development (Kumar, 2002).
Furthermore, money, labor and material provision does not constitute participation because as
mentioned by United Nations (2001) community participation in development programs is a
process in which local people are given an opportunity to participate in planning, decision
making and development processes which in some cases they never had an opportunity prior to
the Woreda level decentralization program of 2002. The definitions given by the respondents of
this study may not align to the definition given by the United Nations.
Whereas, the Woreda official’s response to understanding the concept of community
participation in development projects can be summarized as follows:
 Community participation is about the promotion of people centered approach
 Community participation is about the elimination of top down approach and allow the
community to play an active role
 Engaging the community in the decision making of the development projects in their area
 People given a chance to identify and prioritize the projects
 Some degree of involvement in an organization by the community to ensure the success
of the projects
Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process…. 8

The above explanation of community participation in development projects by the Woreda

officials more or less concurs with those of Midgley (1986), MoE (1998), UN (2001), Mansuri
and Rao (2004) and Theron (2005). In general, these authors describe participation as an active
involvement of community members in all stages of the project and as a process to give
communities an opportunity to determine their own destiny. Based on the above findings and
explanation of community participation by the respondents, the study shows that the local
officials do have better understanding the meaning of community participation and its
importance, as compared to the community members at local levels.
4.2. Rate of Attendance Meetings
Focus group discussions conducted with kebele project committees revealed that in the case of
road and farmers training center projects hold meetings once a month to discuss the progress of
the projects, whereas others said they hold meetings once in two weeks for community water
project. Meetings can be used as an important tool towards the sustainability of projects. Meeting
often indicates the signal of problems and opportunities for the projects at an early stage.
Therefore, the formal meeting is fundamental for the sustainability of community projects to
review the implemented strategy and the actual output versus the set goal. The frequency of
meetings based on this finding was adequate to inculcate the overall plan and way forward of the
projects.
Another important finding of this study is the level of attendance of the meetings by community
members. In this regard, majority of the respondents said they rarely attended meetings to
discuss on the progress of projects. In terms of percentages 85% of the respondents rarely
attended meeting, where as 10% attended most of the time and only 5% attended every time such
meetings were summoned. The reasons given by the respondents are that they were not aware
and not informed about the meetings. Poor communication about the meetings leads to lack of
attendance. Meetings are very vital and are regarded as a forum for identifying needs, designing
planning, decision making, learning, exchange of views and ideas on which development
projects are suitable for them.
According to Clearly (2008), meetings involve a group of people spreading information,
reaching decisions or resolving a particular problem through discussion. Meetings create spaces
for community members to identify their problems and to decide on priority problems to be
addressed. Project meetings are the consultation forum to manage and communicate project
between stakeholders, Thus project meetings are important for the success of the project
(Burker& Barron, 2007; Miners, 1969). Gorse and Emmitt (2003) recognize that project
meetings play an important part in the development and maintenance of relationships that
ultimately influence and control a project.
Some of the respondents suggested that since they have representatives who are responsible for
attending meetings and talk on their behalf, it was not necessary for them to attend meetings. The
following quote from respondent confirms this finding:
“I do not see any importance of attending a meeting because we as the community have
committee members who attends meetings, listens and talks on our behalf” (In depth Interview,
March 2019).
Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process…. 9

The other respondents said that they are called to attend the meetings either for contributing
money or provision of labor regardless of their desired needs. They continued by saying that
many of the constructed projects are in deplorable state, having poor quality and as a result of
that the projects are not sustainable. This the following view of a respondent strengthens this;
“We are called to attend the meetings for the sake of contributing money or provision of labor
for projects planned for us by somebody else. Many constructed projects have not quality and not
long lasting” (In-depth Interview, March 2019).
4.3. The Extent of Community Participation
Many scholars such as Chambers (1997), Imparato and Ruster (2003), Mansuri and Rao (2004),
Midgley (1986) and Theron (2005) in general agree that the local people must actively
participate in all stages of development projects from identification, design, formulation,
planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the projects. In people centered
development projects, local people are the ones who identify their needs and determine the
direction of their projects to improve their levels of development. According to the interviews
and focus group discussions made with the respondents, all of the project beneficiaries from
Sombo Darru and Yanga Dogoma kebeles of the study Woreda confirmed that they were
involved in the development projects at the implementation stage.
The researcher came across with great discrepancies of how the beneficiaries responded to how
they participated in different stages of the project cycle. The respondents were asked if they were
given a chance to identify and prioritize the projects. Accordingly, all of the respondents (100%)
indicated that they were not given any chance to identify and prioritize the projects. They
mentioned that they were only told about the projects once when they are launched and believe
that the projects had already been decided upon by the top management at Woreda level. This is
referred to, by Pretty (1995) in his typologies of participation, as “passive participation”, people
participate by being told what has been decided or has already happened. The following
quotations confirm this finding:
“By the time we were called for the meeting, the project had already been started. We were only
told that there is a certain project in progress” (In depth Interview, March 2019).
“Because the project had already been discussed and decisions taken, we were requested to
submit money, provide labor and materials for the implementation of the project” (In depth
Interview, March 2019).
Community participation is conceptualized as a process by which members of the community,
individually or collectively assume increased responsibility for the assessment of their own
needs, and once these needs are agreed upon, identifying potential situations to problems, and
plan strategies by which these solutions may be realized (Bermejo & Bekui, 1993). DFID (2002)
stresses that; the broad aim of participation in development is to actively involve people and the
communities in identifying problems, formulating plans and implementing decisions over their
own lives. Almost all of the respondents were not satisfied with the way operations and
management of the projects undergoing. Brett (2003) argues that participation is an empowering
process in which “people, in partnership with each other and those able to assist them, identify
problems and needs, mobilize resources, assume responsibility to plan, manage, control and
Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process…. 10

assess the individual and collective actions that they themselves decide upon”. As a process of
empowerment, participation is concerned with development of skills and abilities to enable the
rural people to manage better and have a say or negotiate with the existing development systems
(Oakley, 1991). Participation as empowerment can therefore help to amplify acknowledged
voices by enabling rural people to decide upon and take the actions which they believe are
essential to their development (Oakley, 1991; Slocum et al, 1995). Swick (2001) stresses that the
“voice” of every person is important in creating strong people and/or community relationships.
The findings of this study similarly reveal that the community members were not fully
participating in the initiation, designing, planning and ownership of projects underway in their
localities.
This is quite ironic, because the set of legal frameworks such as the Federal Democratic Republic
of Ethiopia (FDRE) constitution of 1995 under Article 43/2, the Woreda level decentralization
policy of 2002 and the Education Sector Development Program (ESDP) of 1998 state the
importance of community participation in all stages of development projects. However, in actual
terms the voice of local people is barely heard and they contributed almost nothing in choosing
which projects they prioritize. In this regard Johnston’s (1982) assertion is in line with the
findings of this study is that where people have no share in decision making and merely
complying with predetermined plans by providing material, labor or even votes or acceptance of
specific conditions, is regarded as the lowest level of participation.
According to Fintsternbusch and Van Wicklin III (1989), participation is a contribution to the
decision or work involved in the projects. The authors noted that participation occurs through
stages and manifests varying degrees in project development. Moningka (2000) adds that
community participation can be seen as a process in which community members are involved at
different stages and degrees of intensity in the project cycle with the objective to build the
capacity of the community, to maintain services created during the project after the facilitating
organizations have left. Participation throughout the whole project, from project design and
implementation to evaluation, ensures the reflection of community priorities and needs in the
activities of the project. This motivates the community into maintaining operating project
activities after the project is completed.
4.4. The Ways by which Community is benefitted from the Projects
The respondents of this study agree that by participating in the projects 43% of them gained
access to market, education, health, agricultural inputs and knowledge sharing and the remaining
57% said that they are not benefitted and this threaten the sustainability of projects. Narayan
(1995) points out that participation is the notion of contributing, influencing or redistribution of
power and of control of resources, and benefitting from knowledge and skills gained through
voluntary involvement in the decision making process of the project. The finding of this study
therefore indicates that 57% of the respondents believe that they have not benefitted from the
local projects. And as a result, this affected their participation in the projects.
4.5. Empowerment of Community
The study finding shows that 85% of the respondents said that the projects have not empowered
them in any way and 15% said the projects have empowered them. The respondents mentioned
that they have gained skills, knowledge and income while taking part in the projects. Those who
Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process…. 11

feel empowered may not have gained in cash but benefitted in other ways. Such as: group
meetings and training, they feel empowered to make decisions regarding the projects in their
local area. They further mentioned that they are now empowered to demand services from
government. Some respondents from kebele project committee who hold leadership positions
said they have gained organizational and leadership skills and they have learned how to be a
good example to others. Brett (2002) supports this statement by arguing that participation
strengthens managerial competence, motivation and performance of workers, social solidarity
and relative position of poor and marginal groups in the society. Empowerment is associated
with development of community skills in relation to the project (Marais & Krige, cited in
Raniga& Simpson, 2002). Robert (2006) stress empowerment as having a real say in decision
making that affect the project development. According to Narayan’s (1995), any development
activity that leads to increased access and control over resources and to acquisition of new skills
and confidence, enables people to initiate action on their own. This allows the acquisition of
leadership skills that can be seen as human development. Empowerment is essentially a political
concept that measures more equal sharing or redistribution of power and resources with those
who previously lacked power (Narayan, 1995).
4.6. Community Satisfaction with the Projects
Interviews and focus group discussions conducted with community members in the study
Woreda indicates 81% of the respondents are unsatisfied about how the management or project
leader is handling the projects and 19% of the respondents said they are happy. Those
respondents who said that they are unhappy argued that the service delivery by the local Woreda
government is totally unsatisfactory, the implemented projects have no quality and deteriorated
to operate, there is unfulfilled promise by Woreda officers for political gain and there is
favoritism by local leaders or kebele project committees in selection of project sites without any
explanation given to them. Low level of community participation may lead to abandonment of
completed projects. For instance, the farmers training center built some years ago in Sombo
Darru kebele but is not yet equipped and manned to give service. It seems that it is falling apart
before giving the intended service. Many other similar unplanned and uncoordinated activities
can be mentioned in the Woreda. The Shebe-Hane road corridor which is crossing Yanga
Dogama kebele is eroded by rain and there is also another on spot water supply scheme project
which is filled by runoff water.
Generally, the respondents lack interest about the operations of the government controlled and
dominated project particularly the projects underway by Shebe SomboWoreda. As a result,
participation is declining drastically. Furthermore, respondents argue that they no longer make
decisions but just operate as per directives given from above thereby making them mere
recipients of development projects they have knowledge of from the inception and at different
life cycles of the projects. This justifies the argument put forward by Vincent (2004), against
participation which is that outsiders tend to retain for themselves the right to guide the process
and decide who participates, how and what gets funded. In relation to the issue of projects that
deteriorated to operate, Woreda project officials provided some reasons as to why this has
happened.
“One of the challenges we are facing as the government, is the issue of contractors. They are
appointed and fail to perform” (In depth Interview March 2019).
Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process…. 12

“There was a shortage of funds and lack of resources, which lead to the project to cease to
operate” (In depth Interview, March 2019).
“There is also the existence of corruption at various government structures” (In depth Interview,
March 2019).
Everatt (2001) points out that development projects have to be designed, budgeted and piloted.
Therefore, in this regard it can be assumed that the projects were not properly designed,
budgeted and piloted. Everatt & Gwagwa (2005) further mentioned that development projects
very rarely move at the pace demanded by financial calendars (especially when the state is
involved). This places a huge challenge on those in charge of development projects.
4.7. Community Participation Challenges
Challenges in participation can result in project failure and demotivate the community members
from participating in development projects. This theme explores the various factors that inhibited
the local people from participating in development projects.

 Lack of community participation at the beginning of the projects: lack of community

participation at the beginning of the project is one of the major challenges. The
respondents argued that they were not involved in the beginning of the project and
therefore, did not feel the need to take part while decisions have already being made on
their behalf. Everatt (2001) gives credence to this finding and mentions that some
projects experience problems where community members do not want to participate at
later stages because the community was excluded during the identifying, planning, and
decision making stages.
 Lack of information and transparency: the respondents further stated that there is a
lack of information and transparency regarding the projects. This also plays a crucial role
in the declining of community participation. Respondents argued that they are sometimes
surprised with what happens in the projects as they are not kept informed. They further
mentioned that the committee sometimes does not transfer information to them. This
means information is known by leaders only. Marais (2007) refers to this as ‘capacities
and processes’. Raniga & Simpson’s (2002) study revealed that the community felt that
there had not been adequate community participation, as there was a feeling that there
was a lack of transparency and lack of information regarding how the project was
identified in the first place.
 Poor leadership quality: quality of leadership was found to impact negatively on the
participation of community in development projects (Tandon, 1991). Poor leadership at
local level structures has also contributed immensely to the local people not participating
in development projects. Some of the respondents argued that there is a form of
favoritism by local leaders and the project committee; people are not treated equally,
resulting in a decline of participation.
 The issue of funds: the issue of funds is very critical to project sustainability as noted by
the responses of the study population. The local officials seem not to be accountable and
transparent to the local community about funding meant for the various projects that are
implemented in the two selected kebeles. Misappropriation of funds and other resources
Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process…. 13

has been a barrier to effective community participation in development projects (Kimani

et al., 2011).
 Low income level: the other challenge raised by the respondents affecting their
participation is low income or poor living condition. Hussein (2003) argues that there is
no way that participation can be realized in a situation of high cost of living, poor
economic conditions and reduced peace of mind among citizenry. More studies have
established that low-income communities have not participated in both decision-making
and development processes of projects (Botes & Rensburg, 2000).
 Poor project quality: lack of quality in development projects plays a significant role in
prohibiting the community from participation on development projects. Some
respondents expressed fear and disinterest in participating. They noted that most of the
projects tend to operate in isolation and are challenged by lack of sustainability.
As a result of the above mentioned challenges, the community has decided to take charge of
these challenges or problems and requested that they should be consulted and provided with
feedback on the progress of the projects. The above challenges are an indication of huge
administrative and financial management problems that the Shebe SomboWoreda has to address.
The Woreda officials’ response on the challenges of participation concurs with most of those
mentioned by the community members. Nevertheless, the following responses from officials
indicate on how these challenges of participation can be addressed:
“By improving better services and project coordination from Woreda government” (In depth
Interview, March 2019).
“Establishing proper communication channels to understand the community needs and intended
plans to address those community needs” (In depth Interview, March 2019).
“Giving the community members the chance to prioritize the projects” (In depth Interview,
March 2019).
“It is important to establish the correct project plan in business format that is aligned to
community needs and government plans” (In depth Interview, March 2019).
The above quotations from the Woreda official indicate that the officials are aware of some of
the challenges of participation and have solutions on how these challenges can be addressed.
However, what is clearly lacking in these responses is the understanding that the community has
to practically participate in the decision making process from the beginning, starting with
identification of the projects to be initiated in accordance with community needs. This is the
most critical challenge that confronts government officials who may understand the notion of
participation from theoretical perspective but failed to implement it in practice. It is therefore
assumed that if all of these challenges are taken into consideration, addressed and implemented
accordingly, then an effective and efficient participation by the community is guaranteed.
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
The study set out to examine the extent of community participating in development projects
planning process. This study concludes that community members do not authentically participate
Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process…. 14

in their own development because they are not included in the projects from the beginning of the
process. Even if the planning process includes some level of participation, the planning approach
employed seems to be more of a “local top-down” approach rather than a truly participatory one.
Participation is used only as a means of extracting information from the community, rather than
as a vehicle for involving local people in decision-making. The outputs from local level
participatory planning approach need to be used carefully to ensure that the community value is
not lost to the overall planning process, and that the views expressed by local community are not
distorted. Currently prioritization exercises taking place at the village level become meaningless
when the results are aggregated into sectors.
Planning is at the centre of all development initiatives. Socio-economic development planning
conducted in a multi-stakeholder and participatory manner gives community the opportunity to
determine their destiny. The history of development planning shows that more is achieved when
the target beneficiaries are involved in all the steps of the process. The community has initiated
the development projects, be involved in all stages of the project, be aware of the implemented
projects, provided with good leadership, provided with transparent information and further
requested that, they should be consulted and provided feedback on the progress of the projects.
To this end, the researchers recommend the following initiatives.
 The regional government should support the community to ensure a strong commitment
to participation in development projects. Hussein (2003) says that the role of government
is to spread the idea about the bottom-up approach to development, orientate its staff to
the participatory approach and to practically involve the community in decision making
processes during the formulation, implementation and evaluation of projects.
 The formal meetings are important for the sustainability of community based projects to
review the implemented strategy and the actual output versus the set output. Therefore, it
is recommended that the regular formal meetings at the interval of two weeks be held in
all community projects.
 Another important element crucial to the success of community participation is the
degree to which the community has been trained and empowered to take charge of the
project. The community should be trained, educated and have awareness on the
importance of their participation for their well-being. Thus, proper training is
recommended.
 The community and not the officials should own the project so that they can take
responsibility in terms of sustaining the project and ensuring participation. Information
regarding the project should be transparent to the community.
 In order to facilitate a meaningful and effective participation by the community,
especially the poor, there is a need to build the capacity of the people at all levels,
popularize and encourage community participation in development projects and consider
the issue of no income and low-income.
This study has been premised on a case study which looked at examining the extent of
community participation in development projects planning process and centred in two rural
kebeles. It did not cover the whole of Shebe Sombo Woreda. It is hoped that the study will serve
Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process…. 15

as an entry point for further research undertaking in areas of community participation in

development projects.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Shebe Sombo Woreda Administration office
for the opportunity and financial support they provided me during my MA studies. I am indebted
to my supervisor Mr. Wondafrash Genet for guiding me through the development of this study. I
am thankful for his support, scholarly advice and contributions he made. Special thanks go to the
communities of Sombo Darru and Yanga Dogama kebeles and the Woreda project officers who
provided the data upon which this research is based. Without their support this study would not
have been possible.

References
Arnstein, Sherry R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute
of Planners.
Ayele, Z. (2009). Decentralization and Local Governance in Ethiopia. Proceeding of the Tenth
anniversaries of Local Government Bulletin Conference, University of Western Cape, 23 July
2009. Cape Town, South Africa: Local Governance Project.
Babbie, E. (1999). The Basics of Social Research. 2nd edition. Belmont CA: Wadsworth
Thomson Learning.
Bermejo A. & Bekui, A. (1993). Community participation in disease control. Social Science and
Medicine.36:1145-1150.
Botes, L & Rensburg, D. (2000). Community participation in development: Nine plagues and
twelve commandments. Community Development Journal, 35: 44-58.
Brett, EA. (2002). Providing for the rural poor. Institutional decay and transformation in
Uganda. Kampala Uganda: Fountain.
Brett, EA. (2003). Participation and accountability in development management. The journal of
Development Studies, 40 (2): 1-29
Burke, R. & Barron, S. (2007). Project management leadership: building creative teams.
Ringwood: Burke Pub.
Burkley, S. (1993). People first: A Guide to Self-reliant Participatory Rural Development. Zed
Books: 1-218.
Chambers, R. (1997). “Who’s Reality Counts? Putting the first last.” London: Intermediate
Technology.
Clearly. S. (2008). Communication a hands-on approach. 2nd ed. Lands downe: Juta & Co.
Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process…. 16

Conveyors, D. (1990). Decentralization and Community Based Planning in Zimbabwe: A

Critical Review in Community Based Planning. Harare: Intermediate Technology.
De Beer, F & Swanepoel, H. (1998). Community Development and Beyond: Issues, structures
and procedures. Pretoria: J. L Van Schaik.
DFID. (2002). Stakeholder participation and analysis. London: Social Development division,
DFID.
Dufera, D. (2005). Prospects, challenges and policy options of Ethiopian education towards the
achievement of EFA goals. Available at http://home.hiroshimau.ac.jp /cice/e-forum/paper67.pdf
Ellis, F, & Biggs, S. (2001). Evolving Themes in Rural Development 1950s-2000s.
http://www.glopp.ch accessed March 2019.
Everatt, D. (2001). RAP-85 Survey report. Commissioned by the Department of Public Works.
Johannesburg: Strategy and Tactics.
Everatt, D & Gwagwa, L. (2005). Community-driven development in South Africa, 19922004.
Africa Region World Paper Series No.92.October. World Bank.
Finsterbusch, K & Van Wilklin III, WA. (1989). Beneficiary participation in development
projects: Empirical tests of popular theories. Economic Development and Cultural Change:
University of Chicago.
Flick, U. (2009). A Comparison to Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications.
Galshberg, A. I. & Winkler, D. R. (2003). Educational Decentralization in Africa: A Review of
Recent policy and Practice. Available at http://www.cnefr.cn/yjdh/wxlb/
qt/images/2019/1/17/362.pdf
Garcia, M. & Rajkumar, A. S. (2008). Achieving Better Service Delivery through
Decentralization in Ethiopia. Washington, D.C., USA: The World Bank.
Gebre-Egziabher, T. & Berhanu, K. (2007). A literature review of decentralization in Ethiopia.
In Assefa, T. & Gebre-Egziabher, T. (Eds.), Decentralization in Ethiopia (pp. 9-68). Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Gorse, CA & Emmitt, S. (2003). Investigating interpersonal communication during construction
progress meetings: challenges and opportunities. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 10(4), pp. 234-244.
Green, R. (2007). The Community Development Process. Available on
http://www.sagepub.comm/upm-data/15523_Chapter_3.pdf
Hussein, MK. (2003). The role of Malawian local government in community development:
Development Southern Africa, 20(2): 271-282.
Imparato, I & Ruster, J. (2003). Slum upgrading and participation: Lessons from Latin America.
Washington, D.C: World Bank.
Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process…. 17

Johnston, M. (1982). The labyrinth of community participation: Experience in Indonesia,

community development. J. 7(3):202-203.
Kapoor, I. (2002). “Participatory Development, Complicity and Desire.” pi. library.yorku.ca
accessed 8 August 2012.
Kimani, N & Kombo, K.D. (2011). “An Investigation of Community Participation in the
Development of Schools and Income Generating Projects in Rural Areas in Kenya”. British
Journal of Educational Research 1 (1). www.sciencedormain.org accessed 27 July 2018
Kumar, S. (2002). Methods for community participation. A complete Guide for Practitioners.
London: ITDG Publishers
Lentfer, J. (2011). “Participation: Reality or the Promised Land? A view from South Sudan”.
http://www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org.
Mansuri, G & Rao, V. (2004). Community based and driven development: A critical review. The
World Bank Research Observer, 19(1): 1-39.
Marais, H. (2007). Public participation and Integrated Development planning: Critical review of
literature on public participation in local development. Johannesburg.
McIvor, C. (2000). Community Participation in Water Management: Experiences from
Zimbabwe, Development and Cooperation, www.inwent.Org accessed 23 February 2019.
Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in Education: a qualitative approach. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey Bass Inc.
Midgley, J., Hall, A., Hardmani, M., & Narine, D. (1986). Community Participation, Social
development and the state. London, UK: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Ministry of Education, (1998). Education Sector Development Program I program Action Plan.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ethiopian Federal Ministry of Education.
Moningka, L. (2000). Community participation in Solid Waste management factors favoring the
sustainability of community participation. A literature review, UWEP occasional paper, website:
http://www.waste.nl.
Narayan, D, (ed). (2002). Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: A Sourcebook. The World
Bank. Washington DC.
Oakley, P., et al. 1991. Project with people: The practice of participation in rural development.
International Labor Office. Geneva
Pattton, MQ. (1990). Qualitative evaluation research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Pretty, J.N. (1995). Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World Development,
23/8: 1247-1263.
Rahman, AMD (1993). People’s Self-Development: perspectives on participatory action
research: A journey through experience. London: Zed Books.
Assessment of Community Participation in Development Project Planning Process…. 18

Raniga, T & Simpson, B. 2002.Community participation. Rhetoric or Reality? Social Work: A

professional Journal for the social worker, 38 (2): 182-191.
Reid, N. (2001). “Community Participation: How People Power Brings Sustainable Benefits to
Communities”, http://www.rurdev.usda.gov
Rifkin, S & Kangere, M. (2003). “What is Participation?” http://www.asksource.
Robert, M. (2006). Opinions and perspectives: A real-life-A real community: The empowerment
and full participation of people with an intellectual disability in the community. Journal of
intellectual and development disability, June 2006: 31 (2): 125-127.
Slocum, R, Wichhart, L, Rocheleau, D & Thomas-Slayter, B. (eds). 1995. Power, process and
participation. London: ITDG Publishing.
Swick, KKJ. 2001. Service-learning in teacher education: Building learning communities.
Clearing House: 74(5): 261–264.
Tandon, Y. (1991). “Participatory Development as Dimension in Africa’s Development and
Transformation Efforts”. Wajib Volume 6 No. 1 Nairobi. Kenya.
Theron, F. (2005). Participation as a micro-level development Strategy, in F, Davids; F,Theron&
KJ Maphunye. Participatory development in South Africa: A development management
perspective. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
USAID. (2005). Identifying the Impact of Education Decentralization on the Quality of
Education. Washington, D.C.: USAID. Available at http://www.equip123.net/doc s/e2-Decent
Quality_WP.pdf
United Nations. (2001). “Community Participation.” http://www.infed.org accessed 6 September
2019.
Vincent, S. (2004). Participation, resistance and problems in Peru: Towards a new political
contract, in S. Hickley and G. Mohan (eds). Participation from Tyranny to transformation:
Expiring new approaches to participation in development. London: Zed Books.