C L A I M I N G C I T I Z E N S H I P

RIGHTS • PARTICIPATION • ACCOUNTABILITY

SpSLCCS for
Change?
THE PO LITIC S OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN NEW DEMOCRATIC ARENAS

d i t e d b y A n d re a C o r n w a ll
ex.2
é ) Vera S c h a t t a n C o e l h o
 Claiming Citizenship:
Rights, Participation and Accountability
Series Editor: John Gauenta

Around the world, a growing crisis o f legitimacy characterizes the

relationship between citizens and the institutions that affect their lives.
In both North and South, citizens speak o f mounting disillusionment
with government, based on concerns about corruption, lack o f
responsiveness to the needs o f the poor and the absence o f a sense o f
connection with elected representatives and bureaucrats. Conventional
forms o f expertise and representation are being questioned. The rights
and responsibilities o f corporations and other global actors are being
challenged, as global inequalities persist and deepen.
In response, this series argues, increased attention must be paid to
re-examining contemporary understandings o f rights and citizenship in
different contexts, and their implications for related issues o f participa­
tion and accountability. Challenging liberal understandings in which
citizenship is understood as a set o f rights and responsibilities bestowed
by the state, the series looks at how citizenship is claimed and rights
are realized through the agency and actions o f people themselves.
Growing out o f the work o f an international network o f researchers
and practitioners from both South and North, the volumes in this
series explore a variety o f themes, including locally rooted struggles
for more inclusive forms o f citizenship, the links between citizenship,
science and globalization, the politics and dynamics o f participation
in new democratic arenas, and the relationships between claiming
rights and ensuring accountability. Drawing from concrete case
studies which focus on how people understand their citizenship and
claim their rights, the volumes contribute new, empirically grounded
perspectives to current debates related to deepening democracy,
realizing rights-based development, and making institutions more
responsive to the needs and voices o f poor people.

1 Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings and Expressions, ed. Naila Kabeer

2 Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, ed.
Melissa Leach, Ian Scoones and Brian Wynne
3 Rights, Resources and the Politics of Accountability, ed. Peter Newell and
Joanna Wheeler
4 Spaces for Change? The Politics of Citizen Participation in New Democratic
Arenas, ed. Andrea Cornwall and Vera Schattan P. Coelho
5 Claiming Citizenship: Rethinking Democratic Participation, by John Gaventa
(forthcoming 2007)
 A b o u t the Editors

Andrea Cornwall is a fellow o f the Institute o f Developm ent

Studies at the University o f Sussex. H er research interests include the
ethnography o f democracy and the politics o f citizen engagem ent in
governance. She is author o f Beneficiary, Consumer, Citizen: Perspectives
on Participation for Poverty Réduction (Sida Studies, 2000), co-editor
o f Realizing Rights: Transforming Approaches to Sexual and Reproductive
Wellbeing (with Alice Welbourn, Zed Books, 2002) and Pathways to
Participation (with Garett Pratt, IT Publications, 2003).

Vera Schattan P. Coelho is a political scientist. She is a researcher

and project coordinator at the Brazilian C en ter o f Analysis and
Planning (C E B R A P ) in São Paulo, Brazil. H er interests centre on
new forms o f citizen participation, deliberation, and consultation
to improve social policies and democracy. She is the author of
numerous articles on health policy, pension reform and participatory
governance and is editor o f Pension Reform in Latin America (FGV,
2003) and Participation and Deliberation in Contemporary Brazil (with
Marcos Nobre, 34 Letras, 2004).
 Spaces for Change?
The Politics of Citizen Participation
in N ew Democratic Arenas

Edited by Andrea Cornwall

& Vera Schattan P. Coelho

VOLUME 4 OF C L A I M I N G CITIZENSHIP

SERI ES E D I T O R J O H N GAVENTA

IESP/UERJ BIBLIOTECA

©
ZED BO O KS
London <& New York
 Forew o rd

Jo h n G a ven ta

Around the world, the forms and meanings o f dem ocratic participa­
tion are under contestation. In Iraq, Fallujah is bom bed in the name
of m aking the country ready for dem ocracy; in Indonesia, U kraine
and the United States, voters and observers are gripped in debates
and protests about electoral dem ocracy; in Cancún and other global
fora, streets are occupied by those dem anding more dem ocracy in
global processes; in small villages and neighbourhoods, grassroots
groups are claiming their places in local democratic spaces. Dem ocracy
is at once the language o f military power, neoliberal market forces,
political parties, social movements, donor agencies and N G O s. What
is going on?
In the midst o f such contestation and debate, this book provides
rich and com pelling em pirical case studies o f the dynam ics o f
democratic participation, especially in relation to ‘ new dem ocratic
arenas’ at the local level. In so doing, the book adds significantly
to a rapidly em erging literature on the challenge o f ‘deepening
dem ocracy’ - that is, the contem porary project o f developing and
sustaining more substantive and em powered citizen participation in
the political process than what is norm ally found in liberal repre­
sentative dem ocracy alone. W hile much has been written - both
norm atively and conceptually - about these m ore participatory,
inclusive and deliberative forms o f democracy, this book is one o f the
first to exam ine what these ideas mean in practice, especially across
such a diverse range o f case studies, w hich span experiences from
five continents. Building on a long literature on citizen p a rtic ip a tio n
and democracy, these cases provide fresh insights into a number o f
next-generation questions, asking not only how and whether ordinary
citizens should engage directly in the governance o f public affairs'
but also what the dynamics and outcomes are when they do.
Across much o f the vast literature on democracy, we are confronted
with a paradox. On the one hand, there is the somewhat triumphalist
view that democracy has spread as never before.1 By the year 2000,
we are told, there were ostensibly 120 electoral democracies in place
(out o f 192 existing countries), o f which some 85 were thought to be
‘full’ democracies, in the sense that they provided respect for the rule
o f law, civil and political rights, leading the US-based Freedom House
observers to declare the last century the ‘democratic century’ .
On the other hand, despite the acknowledged spread o f democratic
institutions and practices, others warn that the quality o f democracy
is in crisis, faced by a series o f democratic deficits which are calling
its vitality and very meaning into question. In the Northern more
‘mature’ democracies, for instance, a large literature discusses declining
patterns o f political participation, the ‘hollowing out' o f politics and
the growing power o f special interests. There is a concern with the
dangers o f ‘diminishing dem ocracy’, and conversely with a search
for ways in which it can be revitalized - often through new forms
o f citizen engagement.'
Similar concerns emerge in the literature on ‘em erging dem ocra­
cies’ , often countries which have shaken o ff years o f autocratic rule
and are now struggling to make democratic institutions w ork and
to provide new opportunities for citizen engagement. Here the
concerns are less ones o f democratic decline than o f w hether the
forms o f democracy inherited from - and often imposed by - the
more established democracies are appropriate to differing historic
conditions, and whether democracy itself will deliver 011 solving
problems o f extreme poverty, growing inequality and social justice.
In Latin America, for instance, while the institutions o f democracy
have taken hold in every country but Cuba, a report in 2004 by
U N D P found increasing frustration with how these democracies
were functioning. Indeed, scarcely 53 per cent o f the population
reported that they supported democracy, and only 28 per cent wrere
satisfied with its performance.4 In Africa, others w rite o f the creation
o f what might be called ‘exclusionary’ democracies, in w hich the
institutions and trappings o f democratic process are created, but
in a situation in which they cannot respond to the needs o f the
majority in any meaningful way because larger decisions are made
by powerful, external actors.3
For the triumphalists, democracy-building is about spreading a
largely standardized recipe o f institutional designs around the world
- one that focuses on universal elections, rule o f law, and protection
o f a minimum level o f civil and political rights. For those concerned
with its deficits, democracy is not only about spread, it is also about
deepening its quality and meanings in ways appropriate to the settings
in which it is found. Indeed, both perspectives may be important:
while the institutional forms and procedures o f democracy increas­
ingly are found in many places, the critical challenge is how to deepen
their inclusiveness and substance, especially in terms o f how citizens
engage within new democratic spaces, and how such participation
delivers on meeting basic developmental and social needs.
In response to the perceived crisis o f democracy, we see a number
o f competing approaches to reform, each o f which has substantially
differing views about the role o f citizens in the governance o f their
own affairs. A neoliberal market approach argues for the continued
weakening o f the state through a combination o f decentralization
and privatization. In such a formulation, citizens are often reduced
to consumers, who express preferences through market choices,
and perhaps through co-provisioning o f services at the local level,
but who exercise little real democratic power over state policies.
A second dominant view grows out o f the liberal representative
model, which puts a great deal o f stress on getting the institutions
and procedures o f democracy right, especially as measured through
competitive, multiparty electoral processes. In this view, the role o f
citizens is somewhat passive. Citizens participate through elections,
and enjoy certain rights, but these are primarily the individual rights
o f freedom from interference by states in matters o f private property,
expression and political association.
The liberal representative view is extended by a third view, which
grows out o f long traditions o f participatory democracy and which
is increasingly referred to as the ‘deepening democracy’ approach.
In this view, democracy is not only a set o f rules, procedures and
institutional design, and participation cannot be reduced to engage­
ment in electoral processes. Rather it is a process through which
citizens exercise ever-deepening control over decisions which affect
their lives through a number o f forms and in a variety o f arenas. In
some formulations, especially those emerging from Latin America, this
view also is about the extension o f rights. Full democratic citizenship
is attained not only through the exercise o f political and civic rights,
but also through social rights, which in turn may be gained through
participatory processes, and it is also about the ‘right to create rights’
through struggles and demands from below/’ As such, the meanings
and forms o f democracy are constandy under construction.
In this view, then, the way to deal with the crisis o f democracy, or
the democratic deficit, is to extend democracy itself — that is, to go
beyond traditional understandings o f representative democracy, through
creating and supporting more participatory mechanisms o f citizen
engagement, which in turn are built upon, and support, more robust
views o f the rights and responsibilities o f citizenship. A consequence
o f this view is the creation o f many new democratic spaces or op­
portunities for participation - some based on the extension o f rights
to participate, others based on invitations for consultation. It is the
dynamics o f these new democratic arenas - and whether they can
fulfil their potential for democratic revitalization and development
- which this book on Spaces for Change? explores and interrogates.
Even among those theorists and practitioners who support the
deepening democracy project, there are competing views o f how
best more substantive and participatory forms o f democracy are to
be achieved, especially in a way that improves the lives o f people
living in the face o f poverty, relative powerlessness and inequality.
One approach - widely promoted by donors in the development
field through their democracy-building programmes - has been to
argue that the biases towards elitism or a lack o f public accountability
found in traditional institutional design approaches can be offset by
investing in a vibrant civil society, as well as in political institutions
and electoral politics. Based on long-standing ideas o f the importance
o f ‘associationalism’ in democracy, a robust civil society can serve as
an additional check and balance on government ^ehaviour, through
mobilizing claims, advocating for special interests, playing a watchdog
role, and generally exercising countervailing power against the state.
The case studies in this book, however, raise fundamental challenges
for this approach, questioning the assumption that is often made
about the inherendy democratizing potential o f civil society, and also
questioning whether civil and political societies can be so clearly
separated one from another in everyday practice.
While the civil society approach focuses on building civil society’s
role as an autonomous, countervailing power against the state, other
views focus on deepening democratic engagement through the
participation o f citizens in the processes o f governance with the
state, through what has come to be referred to as ‘co-governance’,
participatory governance, or even ‘empowered participatory govern­
ance’ approaches.7 In practice, participatory forms o f governance
seek to supplement the roles o f citizens as voters or as watchdogs
through more direct forms o f involvement. These may be seen at
many levels - ranging from new forms o f citizen engagement in
national policymaking to new constitutional or legal mandates for
citizen participation in local governance, often associated with the
wave o f democratic decentralization that occurred during the 1990s
in many developing countries, including India, Bangladesh, South
Africa and Brazil, as illustrated in this volume.
While the co-governance approach emphasizes the importance
o f inclusion through participation in democratic processes, a related
strand o f democratic participation focuses more on the nature and
quality o f deliberation that occurs when citizens do come together
for discussion and debates in public spaces. Such a view builds upon
the philosophical work o f Habermas, as well other theorists such as
Cohen and Dryzek, and argues for ‘a more deliberative democracy
in which citizens address public problems by reasoning together
about how best to solve them__ The ambitious aim o f deliberative
democracy, in short, is to shift from bargaining, interest aggregation,
and power to the common reason o f equal citizens as a dominant
force in democratic life’8 The focus here is often more on the ‘qual­
ity o f public talk’, less on ‘w ho’ participates in the process o f public
engagement.*' Like approaches to participatory governance, concepts
o f deliberative democracy have spawned a huge and interesting array
o f innovations in practice, such as deliberative polling, large-scale
deliberative meetings, or citizens’ juries - many o f which seek to gain
participation through some form o f representative sampling o f citizens,
who then deliberate together to propose new - and arguably more
reasoned - solutions to public issues. Again, we see examples in this
volume, such as the case study o f a large-scale deliberation on health
policy in Canada, or in other more local spaces, such as the health
councils in Brazil or participatory budget practices in Argentina.
This volume on Spaces for Change? goes beyond previous work
in several important ways. First, it extends the study o f democratic
innovation from the somewhat celebrated examples o f Porto Alegre,
Brazil, or Kerala, India, to a host o f other lesser-known, and perhaps
more ordinary, settings drawn from a broader variety o f political,
social and cultural contexts. Second, the book adds to the institutional
perspective a more bottom-up approach and multidisciplinary lens
to how institutions intersect with everyday practices and cultures
o f participation.
Looking across these case studies from Angola, Argentina, Bangla­
desh, Brazil, India, South Africa, Britain and Canada, the book argues
that the impulses and innovations for more ‘participatory’, ‘delibera­
tive’ and ‘empowered’ approaches to democracy have contributed
to a fundamental change in the relation o f civil society and the
state, creating in many settings a new ‘participatory sphere’ that is
becoming a crucible for ‘a new politics o f public policy’ . Such a
participatory sphere has great potential for revitalizing democracy,
creating new forms o f citizenship and contributing to tangible
developmental outcomes.
Yet, the book reminds us, we cannot assume that the institutional
design o f ‘new democratic spaces’ will in fact mean that these will
automatically become ‘spaces for change’, especially in ways that
normative democratic theory often assumes. Through these empiri­
cally rich case studies about how institutional forms actually work,
the book reminds us time and again that reforms that are designed
as potential ‘spaces for change’ may interact with different histories,
cultures and forms o f power to produce radically different outcomes
across various settings. B y insisting on an interdisciplinary, bottom-
up approach to the study o f actual democratic practice, the cases
illustrate time and again how the micropolitics o f engagement can
subvert the best intentions o f institutional design.
B y thus critically studying and engaging with what actually
happens within these new democratic spaces, the book also begins
to raise a number o f next-generation questions about the politics
o f participatory and deliberative governance: what forms o f rep­
resentation exist even within participatory processes? How do the
norms o f deliberation translate across different political cultures and
settings? How do participatory processes overlay and interact with
existing political structures? What are the tangible outcomes — both
in democracy-building and developmental terms - o f engagement
in this new participatory sphere, and how can they be seen in
everyday life?
In so doing, the essays in this book also raise many important
challenges to scholars and practitioners o f democracy alike, illustrating
the lesson that - just as in other formations o f dem ocracy - the
rapid spread o f new democratic forms should not be confused with
the quality and nature o f their performance. In few o f the examples
studied do new dem ocratic arenas translate easily to either the
dem ocracy-deepening or developmental gains for w hich proponents
o f participation might hope.
Yet, at the same time, the contributors to this volum e do not
give up on the potential o f the participatory sphere. As we must
remember, many o f these innovations are still in their early days,
and their success must be measured over decades, not in a few short
years, just as previous extensions o f democratic practice in both N orth
and South have taken long periods, often involving contestation and
struggle, to take hold. M oreover, the cases give us clues to how the
potential o f these spaces can be realized. Indeed, when well-crafted
institutional spaces for participation com e together with champions
for change on the inside, and well-organized, mobilized social groups
on the outside, positive changes for previously excluded groups
may be seen. W here such enabling conditions do not exist, new
opportunities for participation can becom e ‘schools for citizenship’ ,
create new, unexpected forms o f action, and plant seeds for fu rth e r
change in the future.
R eflective perhaps o f the themes it has studied, this book has
also com e out o f a process o f deliberation and engagement. The
researchers whose work is found here have on the w hole been
associated with the Developm ent Research Centre on Citizenship.
Participation and Accountability, an international research network
hosted at the Institute o f D evelopm ent Studies, University o f Sussex-
Contributors to this volum e have been associated with one o f the
w orkin g groups o f this network, w hich over several years began to
interrogate the ways in which ‘new democratic spaces’ were unfolding
in their own countries. M eeting regularly in various locations, the
group used an iterative approach through w hich it developed initial
questions, began the process o f study, came together to c ritiq u e
and debate each others’ w ork, refined and sharpened questions and
approaches, re-engaged in study and then came together towards
the end for further synthesis and discussion. T h e w orkin g group ' vaS
highly diverse - with participants from eight countries, some from
universities, some from N G O s, and spanning a range o f disciplines,
including anthropology, sociology, demography, urban planning, geog­
raphy and philosophy. T h e participatory, deliberative process, as well
as the diversity across culture, setting and discipline, made for rich
discussions and debates and also brought insights from case material
not often found in more narrowly constructed, single-discipline
comparative projects.
This volum e represents the fourth in the Z ed Books series
on Claiming Citizenship. Earlier volumes, listed at the front o f the
book, have focused on the meanings o f rights and citizenship, the
links between science and citizenship and how citizens claim rights
and accountability, especially around natural resources. D raw ing
from concrete case studies - often in examples and cases previ­
ously undocumented for international audiences - these volumes
contribute fresh insights from South and N orth to current debates
on the meanings and practices o f democracy, on struggles for more
inclusive and substantive citizenship, and on creating more responsive
forms o f governance that will contribute to greater social equity
and social justice.
It has been my privilege, as series editor, to accompany and
participate in this process. M y thanks to the co-editors, Andrea
Cornw all and Vera Schattan P. Coelho, w ho have worked together
across the distance that separates Brazil and the U K , anthropology
and political science, South and North, and have insisted throughout
the process that others in the group reach across similar boundaries.
Thanks also to the working group participants, w ho always engaged
one another critically, but with respect, and w ho in so doing created
the kind o f inclusive and deliberative space which we often seek,
yet which, the case studies confirm, is rare to find.

John Gaventa, Director, Development Research Centre

on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability,
Institute of Development Studies, May 2006

Notes

1. This foreword draws 011 my longer paper, ‘Trium ph, deficit or contesta­
tion? D eepening the “ deepening dem ocracy” debate’ , ID S W orking Paper
N o. 264.
2. Freedom House, D em ocrat's Ceuttiry: A Su rrey o f G lobal Political Change
in the 20th Century, Washington D C : Freedom House, 1999.
3. See, for instance, Theda Skocpol, D im inished Democracy: From Membership
to Management in American C ivic Life, N orm an: University ot Oklahom a
Press, 2003.
4. U N D P , Ideas and Contributions: Democracy in Ltitin Am erica - Towards a
C itiz e n s ' Democracy, R e p o rt, N e w York: U n ited N ations D evelopm ent
Program m e, 2004, A ppen d ix A .
5 . See, for instance, R ita Abraham sen, D isciplining Democracy: D evelopm ent
Discourse and G ood Governance in Africa, London: Z e d B ooks, 2000.
6. See, for instance, Evelina D agn in o ,‘ “ W e all have rights, b u t ...” Contesting
concepts o f citizenship in Brazil’ , in Naila Kabeer, ed., Inclusive C itizenship,
London: Z e d Books, 2005.
7 . See, for instance, Jo h n A c k e rm a n ,‘ C o -go vern an ce for accountability: be­
yond “ exit” and “ voice” ’ , World Developm ent 3 2 (3) (2004): 4 4 7 - 6 3 ; John
Gaventa, ‘Towards participatory governance: assessing the transformative
possibilities’ , in Samuel H ickey and Giles M ohan (eds), Participation: From
Tyranny to Transformation?, London: Z e d Books, 2004; A rch on F u n g and
Eric Olin W right, Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered
Participatory Governance, London: Verso, 2003.
8. Joshua C o h en and Archon F u n g ,‘ Radical dem o cracy’ , Sw iss Political Science
R eview 10(4) (2004): 24.
9 . M artha M c C o y and Patrick S cu lly,‘ Deliberative dialogue to expand civic
engagement: w hat kind o f talk does dem ocracy need?’ , N ational CiV/f
R e v ie w 91 (2) (2002): 1 1 7 - 3 5 .
 Spaces for Change?
T h e Politics ot Participation
in N e w Democratic Arenas

A n d rea C o rn w a ll and Vera Sch attan P. C o elh o

The challenge o f building democratic polities where all can realize

their rights and claim their citizenship is one o f the greatest o f our
age. R eform s in governance have generated a profusion o f new
spaces for citizen engagement. In some settings, older institutions with
legacies in colonial rule have been remodelled to suit contemporary
governance agendas; in others, constitutional and governance reforms
have given rise to entirely new structures. These hybrid ‘ new dem o­
cratic spaces’ (Cornwall and Coelho 2004) are intermediate, situated
as they are at the interface between the state and society; they are
also, in many respects, intermediary spaces, conduits for negotiation,
information and exchange. They may be provided and provided for by
the state, backed in some settings by legal or constitutional guarantees
and regarded by state actors as their space into which citizens and
their representatives are invited. Yet they may also be seen as spaces
conquered by civil society demands for inclusion.1 Some are fleeting,
on e-off consultative events; others are regularized institutions w ith a
more durable presence on the governance landscape.
In contrast to analyses that situate such institutions within the
public sphere, such as Avritzers (2002) powerful account o f Brazils
participatory governance institutions, or within the ambit o f the state,
as in Fung and W rights (2003) ‘empowered participatory governance’ ,
we suggest that they constitute a distinct arena at the interface o f
state and society: what we term here the ‘participatory sphere’ . The
institutions o f this sphere have a semi-autonomous existence, outside
and apart from the institutions o f formal politics, bureaucracy and
everyday associational life, although they are often threaded through
w ith preoccupations and positions form ed in them. As arenas in
w hich the boundaries o f the technical and the political com e to
be negotiated, they serve as an entirely different kind o f interface
w ith policy processes than other avenues through w hich citizens
can articulate their demands - such as protest, petitioning, lobbying
and direct action - or indeed organize to satisfy their own needs
(Cornwall and Gaventa 20 0 1; Goetz and Gaventa 2001). These are
spaces o f contestation as well as collaboration, into w hich heteroge­
neous participants bring diverse interpretations o f participation and
dem ocracy and divergent agendas. As such, they are crucibles for a
new politics o f public policy.
This book explores the contours o f this new politics. It brings
together case studies that exam ine the democratic potential of a
diversity o f participatory sphere institutions: hospital facility boards in
South Africa; a national-level deliberative process in Canada; partici­
patory policy councils and com m unity groups in Brazil, India, M e x ic o
and Bangladesh; participatory budgeting in Argentina; N G O -created
participatory fora in Angola and Bangladesh; com m unity fora in the
U K ; and new intermediary spaces created by social m ovem ents in
South Africa. Contributors take up the promises offered by advocates
o f participation - whether enhanced efficiency and effectiveness
o f public policy, ‘deeper’ dem ocracy or a more engaged citizenry
(Mansbridge 1999; Fung and W right 2003; D ryzek 2000; G a v e n ta
2004) - and explore them in a diversity o f social, cultural and
political contexts.
Together, contributors exam ine the e x te n t to w hich the e x p a n s io n
o f the participatory sphere serves to further the project o f dem oc­
ratization, via the inclusion o f diverse interests and the e x te n s io n
o f dem ocratizing practices in the state and public sphere, and that
o f developm ent, via the enhanced efficacy and equity o f public
policies. A number o f studies focus specifically on health, a se c to r
that com bines a history o f radical promises inspired by the 1 97 ^
Alma Ata Declaration, exciting innovations such as the B r a z i l i a n
health councils and experim ents in deliberation in health sy ste m s in
the global N orth, with systemic challenges that include e n tre n c h e d
in e q u a litie s o f knowledge and power. T h ey are com plem ented by
cases that explore a ra n g e o f other dem ocratic and d e v e lo p m e n ta l

spaces, from participation in resource allocation and m anagem ent to

neighbourhood-based associations and fora.
 Departing from a literature characterized more by success stories
in contexts where progressive government is matched with strong,
organized civil society and institutional innovation, such as participa­
tory budgeting in Porto Alegre or participatory planning in Kerala
(Heller 2001; Fung and W right 2003), the majority o f the cases we
consider here are much more ‘ordinary’ . And the tales our contribu­
tors tell - o f ‘empty spaces’ (Mohanty), o f absent representatives
and voices (Mohanty; Mahmud; Williams; von Lieres and Kahane;
von Lieres), o f the play o f politics within these arenas (Cornwall:
Rodgers) and o f the multiplicity o f claims to legitimacy levered
by civil society (Barnes; Castello, Gurza Lavalle and Houtzager;
R oq u e and Shankland) - attest to the complexities o f inclusive,
participatory governance. We explore the extent to which Northern
debates on deliberative democracy and participatory governance
travel to contexts where post-authoritarian regimes, fractured and
chronically under-resourced state services and pervasive clientelism
leave in their wake fractious and distrustful relationships between
citizens and the state, alongside two Northern cases that illustrate
some o f the challenges o f inclusion that remain in progressive
established democracies.
Th e expansion o f participatory arenas has, in some contexts,
facilitated the creation o f new political actors and political sub­
jectivities (Baocchi 2001; Heller 2001; Avritzer 2002). Yet for all
the institutional innovation o f recent years, there remains a gap
between the legal and technical apparatus that has been created to
institutionalize participation and the reality o f the effective exclusion
o f poorer and more marginalized citizens. It is with this gap, and the
challenges o f inclusion, representation and voice that arise in seeking
to bridge it, that this book is primarily concerned. It is organized
in two sections to reflect a central concern with, on the one hand,
substantive inclusion and, on the other, the broader democratizing
effects o f the participatory sphere. That these are interdependent is
evident; accordingly, this introduction weaves together themes arising
from across the book as a whole.
In what follows, we seek to contextualize themes em erging from
the case studies presented in this book with regard to broader debates
on the politics o f participatory governance. We begin by highlighting
some o f the promises o f participation, and consider some o f the
complexities of realizing them in practice. We go on to draw on
the case studies presented in this book to explore what they have to
tell us about the multiple interfaces through which citizens engage
w ith the state and the new configurations o f actors and practices
o f participation that animate the participatory sphere, and w hat this
implies for democratization and development.

P a r t ic i p a t io n , D e m o c r a c y , D e v e lo p m e n t

Shifting frames tor development intervention have brought debates that

have absorbed generations o f political philosophers to the forefront of
contem porary development policy.2 From local ‘co-go vern an ce’ and
‘co-m anagem ent’ institutions promoted by supra-national agencies and
institutionalized by national governments (Ackerm an 2004; M anor
2004), to the explosion in the use o f participatory and deliberative
mechanisms, from Citizens Juries to Participatory Poverty A ssessm ents
(Fischer 2000; Cham bers 1997), the last decade has been one in
which the ‘voices’ o f the public, and especially o f ‘ the p oor', have
increasingly been sought.
A confluence o f developm ent and dem ocratization agendas
has brought citizen engagem ent in governance to centre stage.
Decentralization policies promoted in the 1990s claim ed to bring
governm ent closer to ‘ the p e o p le ’ (Blair 2000; U N D P 2003)-
Governance and sector reforms, instigated and prom oted by lend­
ing agencies and bilateral donors, created a profusion of sites in
which citizens came to be enlisted in enhancing accountability and
state responsiveness (Crook and Sverisson 2003; M anor 2004; Goetz
and Jenkins 2004). A decade o f experim entation w ith participa­
tory m ethodologies and efforts to ‘scale up’ participation within
developm ent bureaucracies (T hom pson 1995; C h am b ers 1997)
led to a late-i990s turn to questions o f participatory g o v e r n a n c e
(Gaventa 2004). At the same time, the ‘deliberative turn’ in debates
on dem ocracy and the politics o f public policy reflects grow ing
interest in the potential o f deliberative institutions and practices toi
dem ocratic renewal in the N orth (Bohm an and R e h g 1996; D r y z e k
2000; H ajer and Wagenaar 2003; Fung 2003), and democratization
o f state-society relations in the South (Heller 2 0 0 1; Avritzer 2002,
C o elh o and N obre 2004).
These distinct strands com e together in the b e lief that in v o lv in g
citizens m ore directly in processes o f governance makes for bettei
citizens, better decisions and better governm ent (M ansbridge 1 999 ’
Cohen and Sabel 1997; Avritzer 2002; Gaventa 2004). Com m on to
all is a conviction that participatory fora that open up more effective
channels o f communication and negotiation between the state and
citizens serve to enhance democracy, create new forms o f citizenship
and improve the effectiveness and equity o f public policy Enabling
citizens to engage directly in local problem-solving activities and to
make their demands directly to state bodies is believed to improve
understanding, and contribute to improving the quality o f definition
and implementation o f public programmes and policies (Cunill 1997;
Cohen and Sabel 1997; Abers 2001; Fung 2003). These policies and
programmes are seen, in turn, as contributing to guaranteeing the
access o f the poorest to social services, thus enhancing prospects for
economic and political inclusion, and for development (World Bank
2001; U N D P 2003).
A host o f normative assumptions are embedded in accounts o f the
benefits o f participation, which tend to merge descriptive and pre­
scriptive elements without clearly defining the boundaries between
empirical reference and normative political discourse. Underlying
these assumptions is the belief that citizens are ready to participate
and share their political agendas with bureaucrats as long as they are
offered appropriate opportunities - and that bureaucrats are w illing
to listen and respond. As the studies in this book demonstrate,
the gap between normative expectations and empirical realities
presents a number o f challenges for the projects o f democratization
and development. It becomes evident that the participation o f the
poorer and more marginalized is far from straightforward, and that
a number o f preconditions exist for entry into participatory institu­
tions. Much depends on who enters these spaces, on whose terms and
with what ‘epistemic authority’ (Chandoke 2003).
Evelina Dagnino (2005) highlights a ‘perverse confluence’ between
two versions o f participation in contemporary debates 011 governance.
On the one hand, participation is cast as a project constructed around
the extension o f citizenship and the deepening o f democracy. On
the other, participation has come to be associated with shrinking
state responsibilities and the progressive exemption o f the state from
the role o f guarantor o f rights, making the market what Dagnino
has called a ‘surrogate arena o f citizenship’ (2005: 159). In this logic,
citizens as ‘ users’ become self-providers as well as consumers o f
services (Cornwall and Gaventa 200 1).The paradox, Dagnino observes,
is that both require an active, indeed proactive, civil society.
 O n e o f the themes that runs through this book is an insistence
on the need to unpack the category ‘ civil society’ , to examine
critically w ho comes to represent citizens in the participatory sphere
and the role that civil society organizations might play in enhancing
access and dem ocratizing decision-m aking in this arena. C ivil society
organizations are com m only believed to possess the dem ocratizing
properties that are associated with the public sphere (C ohen and
Arato 1992; Acharya et al. 2004; Edwards 2004). Yet ‘civil society’ is
in effect a residual category, in which more progressive politicized
elements come to be conflated with apolitical or positively reactionary
civic organizations that may have anti-democratic ideals and practices
(Dryzek 2000). After all, as Chandoke (2003) reminds us, civil society
is only as democratizing as its practitioners.
Accounts o f civil society’s virtues highlight the role such organiza­
tions can play in holding the state to account. Yet the grow in g part
civil society organizations have com e to play as providers as well
as intermediaries not only blurs the boundaries ot the ‘state’ / ‘civil
society’ binary, it also raises questions about their autonom y and
indeed accountability (Chandoke 2003; Tvedt 1998). W here civil
society actors are able to stimulate new social and political practices
that they then carry into the participatory and public spheres, they
can make a significant contribution to inclusiveness and deliberation
(Avritzer 2002; C ohen and Arato 1992). Yet it is a leap o f faith to
extend these positive effects to ‘civil society’ at large, as Acharya
et al. (2004) point out. A key question, then, is w hich kinds of
civil society organizations enable inclusive participation, and what
are the conditions under which they com e to flourish and gain
influence.
Th e reconfiguration o f state-society relations that is taking place
with the introduction o f the kinds o f new dem ocratic sites and
practices that are the focus for this book also calls for a view °t
the state that goes beyond constructing it as a m onolith. As IrlS
M arion Young argues:

it is a m isleading reification to co n cep tu alise g o v e rn m e n t institution5

as fo rm in g a single, u n ifo rm , co h eren t g o v e rn a n ce system , ‘ the state •
In fact, at least in m ost societies in the w o rld today w ith fu n ctio n in g
state institutions, these institutions in terlock at different levels, som etirn eS
overlap in ju risd ic tio n , and so m etim es w o rk in d ep en d e n tly o r at cross
purposes. (20 04: 62)
Indeed, state actors in the participatory sphere may share beliefs,
ideals, prejudices and social networks with social actors (Heller 2001);
and some o f these actors are a far cry from the dull or intrusive
bureaucrat (du Gay 2000), even if others make an art form o f
technocratic obstruction. It is, after all, the state that is often the
object o f mobilization and that remains the guarantor o f rights; and
state-provided participatory spaces, such as many o f those analysed
here, not only provide venues for civil society engagement but can
actively stimulate the creation o f new political collectivities (Baocchi
2001; Young 2000).
What this discussion underscores is the need to understand both
‘the state’ and ‘civil society’ as heterogenous and mutually constitu­
tive terrains o f contestation (Houtzager 2003; Skocpol and Fiorina
1999; Chandoke 2003). This calls for a view o f participation as ‘a
contingent outcome, produced as collective actors (civil society,
state and other) negotiate relations in a pre-existing terrain that
constrains and facilitates particular kinds o f action’ (Acharya et al.
2004: 41). Democratization comes with this to extend beyond the
introduction o f standard packages associated with liberal democratic
reform programmes. As John Dryzek argues:

D em ocratization ... is not the spread o f liberal d em o cracy to ever m ore

corners o f the w orld, but rather extensions along any one o f three di­
mensions ... T h e first is franchise, expansion o f the num ber o f people
capable o f participating effectively in collective decision. T h e second is
scope, b rin gin g m ore issues and areas o f life potentially under dem ocratic
control ... T h e third is the authenticity o f the control ... : to be real
rather than sym bolic, in volvin g the effective participation o f auton om ous
and com peten t actors. (2000: 29)

Participatory sphere institutions potentially contribute along all

three o f these dimensions, multiplying spaces in which growing
numbers o f people come to take part in political life, giving rise
to new political subjectivities and opening up ever more areas o f
decision-making to public engagement. It is, however, with the third
o f D ryzek’s dimensions that this book is primarily concerned. And
it is in relation to the question o f the authenticity and the quality
o f citizen participation that our work intersects with vibrant debates
in political theory on issues o f representation and deliberation, as we
go 011 to explore in more depth later in this chapter (Fraser 1992;
Young 2000; Mansbridge 2000; Dryzek 2000; Fung 2003).
T o w a r d s S u b s t a n t iv e P a r t ic ip a t io n

W hat does it take for marginalized and otherwise excluded actors

to participate m eaningfully in institutionalized participatory fora and
for their participation to result in actual shifts in policy and practice?
Institutionalists have argued that the key to enhancing participation
is to be found in better institutional designs: in rules and decision­
m aking processes that encourage actors to participate (Immergut
1992; Fung 2003). Social movem ent theorists have argued that the
key lies in social mobilization that pushes for fairer distribution
o f available resources (Tarrow 1994; Alvarez, D agnino and Escobar
1998). T h e studies in this book point to a more com plex set of
interactions between getting design principles right and s tim u la tin g
participation ‘from below ’ . If participatory sphere institutions are to
be genuinely inclusive and ‘have teeth' - that is, i f they are to be
more than therapeutic or rubber-stam ping exercises (see Arnstein
i97 0 ~ a number o f critical issues need to be addressed.
First, expanding dem ocratic engagem ent calls for m ore than
invitations to participate (C ornw all 2004). For people to be able to
exercise their political agency, they need first to recognize themselves
as citizens rather than see themselves as beneficiaries or clients.
A cquiring the means to participate equally demands processes of
popular education and mobilization that can enhance the skills and
confidence of marginalized and excluded groups, enabling them to
enter and engage in participatory arenas. T h e studies in this book by
von Lieres, Williams, von Lieres and Kahane, M ahm ud, and M ohanty
point to the significance o f societal spaces beyond the participatory
arena in building the capacity o f m arginalized groups to participate
(see Fraser 1992; Kohn 2000). Yet participatory sphere institutions
are also spaces for creating citizenship, w here through learning t0
participate citizens cut their political teeth and acquire skills that can
be transferred to other spheres - w hether those o f form al polities
or neighbourhood action - as R o q u e and Shankland’s, Barn es’s, and
C o rn w all’s chapters suggest.
Second, questions o f inclusion im ply questions o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n -
If these institutions are to represent ‘ the com m unity’ , ‘ users’ , ‘ civ ^
society’ or indeed ‘ citizens’ , on what basis do people enter then
- and what are their claims to legitim acy to speak for others? What
mechanisms, i f any, exist to facilitate the representation o f marginalize
groups, and what do these am ount to in practice? And what else
might be needed to create the basis for broader-based representation?
Across our cases, there is a significant contrast between settings in
which highly organized and articulate social movements participate
as collective actors as in Brazil and Argentina (Castello et al., Coelho;
Cornwall; Rodgers), and those like Bangladesh, India and South Africa
in which individuals take up places made available to them as an
extension o f family responsibilities, or by virtue o f their sex or race,
rather than the constituencies they represent (Mahmud; M ohanty;
Williams). These questions o f representation draw attention to the
different kinds o f politics and prospects for democracy that emerge
in and across different cultural and political contexts.
Third, simply putting structures o f participation in place is not
enough to create viable political institutions. M uch comes to depend
on the motivations o f those w ho enter them, and what ‘participation’
means to them. Is participation promoted so that bureaucrats can
listen to people’s experiences and understand their concerns, so as
to make better policies? O r so that citizens come to play an active
part in crafting and monitoring policies? Or, indeed, so that these
publics can challenge bureaucrats to be more accountable? O ur studies
demonstrate not only the polyvalence o f the concept o f participation
(Mahmud; von Lieres; Mohanty) but also the coexistence within any
single setting o f plural - and competing - understandings o f what
can be gained that are in constant negotiation (Cornwall; Rodgers;
R oq u e and Shankland).
Fourth, no one wants to just talk and talk and not see anything
change. What, then, does it take for participation to be cjfcctivc as
well as inclusive (Warren 2000)? Coelho (2004 and here) suggests
that the conjunction o f three factors is critical: involvement by a
wide spectrum o f popular movements and civil associations, com ­
mitted bureaucrats, and inclusive institutional designs that address
exclusionary practices and embedded bias. In contexts with highly
asymmetrical resource distribution am ong participants, there is a
very real danger o f elite capture (Mahmud; Mohanty). Equally, the
path-dependency o f policy choices can constrain deliberation to
issues o f implementation, offering little real scope for rethinking
policies.3 Certain institutional designs are, Fung (2003) argues, more
or less inclined to promote the legitimacy, justice or effectiveness o f
decisions taken in these spaces. These dimensions do not converge,
Fung points out: it is hard to privilege one w ithout sacrificing
others. W here institutions are implanted without attention to design
features that help mediate conflict, secure particular configurations
o f roles and forms o f representation, and address the tensions and
trade-offs between inclusiveness and effectiveness, it is easy enough
for ‘ old ways’ and forms o f exclusion and dom ination to persist in
‘ new spaces’ (Cornwall 2002).
Lastly, w hat effects do participatory spheres have on citizenship
and on political engagement more generally? W hile som e w riters are
optimistic about their potential to stimulate further participation and
democratization from below (Baocchi 20 0 1; Avritzer 2002), others
point to the ambivalent effects o f institutionalized participation 011
social and political energy and thus on further dem ocratization
(Piven and Clow ard 19 7 1; D ryzek 1996; Taylor 199S). Negative
effects such as disillusionment and a gradual fizzling out o f energy
and com m itm ent em erge most clearly in B arn es’s chapter. But
other chapters point to other, unanticipated, dem ocratizing effects,
as institutions that began with a relatively restricted remit gave rise
to forms o f engagement that spilled beyond their boundaries, 01'
where social actors seized opportunities to repoliticize these spaces
(Rodgers; R o q u e and Shankland).These cases drive hom e the point
that participation is a process over time, animated by actors with
their own social and political projects. M ost o f all, they emphasize
the importance o f contextualizing participatory sphere institutions
with regard to other political institutions and situating them on the
social, cultural and historical landscapes o f w hich they form part
(Heller 20 0 1; Cornw all 2004).
In the sections that follow, we explore issues arising from these
points in more depth. We begin by considering w hat the studies i11
this volum e have to tell us about the m icropolitics o f participation i*1
institutionalized participatory arenas. We go on to address q u estio n s
o f difference, and the issues o f representation and the politics ot
inclusion that arise. Finally, we turn to consider the democratizing
effects and dimensions o f the participatory sphere, w ith a focus
both on engagem ent with the state and on substantive p r o s p e c t s f0‘
dem ocratizing democracy.

S p a c e s o f P o w e r : T h e M ic r o p o lit ic s o f P a r t ic i p a t i o n

From the discursive fram ing that shapes w hat can be d e l i b e r a t e d , t0

the deploym ent o f technical language and claims to authority tna

reinstitutionalize existing cleavages in society, to the way the use
of labels such as ‘ users’ or ‘community members’ circumscribes the
political agency o f participants, power courses through every dimen­
sion o f the participatory sphere. As 'invited spaces’ ,4 the institutions
o f the participatory sphere are framed by those w ho create them,
and infused with power relations and cultures o f interaction carried
into them from other spaces (Cornwall 2002). These are spaces o f
power, in which forms o f overt or tacit domination silence certain
actors or keep them from entering at all (Gaventa 2005). Yet these
are also spaces o f possibility, in which power takes a more productive
and positive form: whether in enabling citizens to transgress positions
as passive recipients and assert their rights or in contestations over
‘governmentality’ (Foucault 1 9 9 0 -
V iew ing participation as a contingent, contested process highlights
the micropolitics o f encounters in participatory arenas. The studies in
this book situate this micropolitics in sites with very different histories
o f state—citizen interaction, configurations o f political institutions,
and political cultures. From post-conflict Angola to N ew Labour’s
Britain, from rural Bangladesh to urban Brazil, the studies in this
volume range across contexts with distinctively different histories
and cultures. W hile persistent inequalities and forms o f embedded
exclusion exist in all, their dimensions and dynamics differ, as do
notions o f citizenship, and the degree and kinds o f social mobilization
and state-supported efforts to redress systemic discrimination, whether
on the basis o f gender, race, caste or class (Kabeer 2005).
Chaudhuri and Heller (2002) argue that a critical shortcoming
o f the debate 011 deepening democracy has been its assumption
that individuals are equally able to form associations and engage in
political activity. This, they argue, ignores fundamental differences in
power between social groups:
I f this is problem atic in any less-than-perfect d em o cracy (and there are 110
perfect dem ocracies) it is especially problem atic in d evelo ping d em o cra­
cies w h ere basic rights o f association are circum scribed and distorted by
pervasive vertical dependencies (clientelistic relationships), routine form s
o f social exclusion (e.g. the caste system, purdah), the unevenness and
at times com plete failure o f public legality, and the persistence o f p re-
dem ocratic form s o f authority. (20 02: 2)

Williams’s account o f health facilities boards in South Africa reveals

the tenacious hold o f older practices o f paternalism in these new
spaces, reproducing patterns o f interaction inherited from the racist
past. He argues that the very culture and design o f South African
health facilities boards serve to perpetuate the dom inance o f whites,
and sustain existing hierarchies o f power and privilege. Internalization
o f norm s valuing certain knowledges and forms o f discourse can
lead to people silencing themselves. Williams quotes a youn g Black
businesswoman: ‘Black people do not participate because they feel
inferior to white people. Participation requires special knowledge
and Black people do not have the necessary know ledge to engage
white people on matters such as health.’
Sim ply creating spaces does little to rid them o f the dispositions
participants may bring into them (see Bourdieu 1977). Professionals
valued for their expertise in one context may be u n w illin g to
countenance the validity or value o f alternative know ledges and
practices in another; and citizens w ho have been on the receiv­
ing end of paternalism or prejudice in everyday encounters with
state institutions may bring these expectations w ith them into the
participatory sphere. M ahm uds study o f Bangladeshi Com m unity
Groups (CGs), which were created as part o f health sector reforms
as ways o f engaging ‘com m unity participation’ in the governance
of health services, reveals some o f these dynamics. She shows how
existing social cleavages are mapped onto participatory institutions,
reducing poorer men and w om en to silence. M ahm ud cites a landless
woman C G member, w ho com m ented: ‘ I am poor and ignorant,
what will I say? Those w ho are more knowledgeable speak more.
Yet she also reveals a reversal o f these power dynam ics w hen it
comes to other forms o f engagem ent, in w hich those silenced iJ1
participatory spaces regain their agency and voice. She cites a female
grassroots Com m unity Group m em ber: ‘ the educated and w e ll-o ft
members can debate or discuss a point in an organized way but
when it comes to protesting they are usually silent and try to stay
out o f the scene.’
M ohanty s chapter highlights precisely this kind o f contrast in the
context o f rural India: between ‘em pty spaces’ o f local governance
and w atershed m anagem ent in w h ich w o m en ’s participation lS
marginal or absent, and w om en -on ly health groups in w hich they
are active. She shows how available opportunities to participate ;UL
circum scribed by essentialized stereotypes o f w om en ’s concerns and
capabilities, leaving little scope for w om en to participate as citizc,,s
rather than as wards or mothers. In a context w here w om en have
scant opportunity to learn the skills needed to engage effectively 111
the participatory sphere, and w here social sanctions w ork to ostracize
those w ho do assert themselves, there are potent barriers to inclusion.
Some women do manage to break with normative expectations and
begin to claim their rights to voice. But this may invite other forms
o f exclusion. She cites Nirmala, a w om ens health worker:

F e w w o m en here have the awareness about their rights. S o m e o f us w h o

are educated and are aware about our rights, w e are seen as a ‘ nuisance’
and a constant threat w ithin the village. H en ce, w h ile w o m en w h o are
silent and docile will be called to m eetings, w e w ill be deliberately kept
outside.

For people living in poverty, subject to discrimination and exclusion

from mainstream society, the experience o f entering a participatory
space can be extremely intimidating. H ow they talk and what they
talk about may be perceived by professionals as scarcely coherent
or relevant; their participation may be viewed by the powerful as
chaotic, disruptive and unproductive. Iris Marion Young argues that
‘norms o f deliberation are culturally specific and often operate as
forms o f power that silence or devalue the speech o f some people’
(1996: 123). A potent challenge for substantive inclusion is, then,
overcoming the embedded inequalities in status, technical knowledge
and power that persistently undermine what Chandoke terms the
‘linguistic and epistemic authority’ (2003: 186) o f subaltern actors.
Bridging these inequalities through mediation, training or coaching
offers the promise o f enhancing the possibilities o f deliberation. But
there are also risks. As we go on to suggest, strategies to amplify
the voice o f marginalized groups may complicate efforts to foster
deliberation. Barnes describes, for example, how young people in the
U K were coached by youth workers to present ‘acceptable’ versions
o f concerns that might have been devalued if they were expressed
in young peoples’ own language. Strategic interpretation on the part
o f well-m eaning intermediaries may, as Chandoke (2003) argues,
overshadow authentic communication and leave the subaltern no less
silenced than before. Mobilization may bring marginalized actors into
participatory spaces, but not necessarily equip them with the skills
to communicate effectively with the others that they meet there.
And activists with experience in social movements, political parties
or unions may bring with them more confrontational and directly
partisan styles o f politics that depart from the consensus-seeking
and ‘rational’ modes o f argumentation o f deliberative democracy, as
C ornw all’s Brazilian case study shows.
 Yet these very pow er dynamics can also im bue participatory
spaces with their dynamism. Spaces for participation may be created
w ith one purpose in mind, but can com e to be used by social
actors to renegotiate their boundaries. Discourses o f participation
are, after all, not a singular, coherent, set o f ideas or prescriptions,
but configurations o f strategies and practices that are played out on
constantly shifting ground (Foucault 1991). In M ahm ud's account of
the activist N G O Nijera K o ri’s work with health watch committees
in Bangladesh, the transformation o f management spaces into political
spaces redefined their possibilities. R o q u e and Shankland’s account
o f the ‘ mutation' o f donor-introduced institutions in Angola reveals
how participants' other projects refashioned and reconfigured their
scope, generating new leadership and dem ocratizing effects. R o d gers’s
chapter provides a particularly rich account o f these dynam ics. He
shows how the Participatory Budgeting process in Buenos Aires
overlaid existing sociopolitical practices and relations to provide ‘spaces
o f autonom y’ within the process, w hich allowed the ‘subverting of
the subversion’ o f politicization. These studies reveal the vitality of
the participatory sphere and its transformatory potential; they also
underscore the point that much depends on who com es to participate
within its institutions, to which we now turn.

Questions o f R ep resentatio n

Distinctive to the participatory sphere are new, plural and m ark e d ly

different form s o f representation and accountability from those
conventionally associated with the institutions o f liberal dem ocracy
(Houtzager et al. 2004).These encode different logics and norm s of
democracy, construing different understandings about w h o ought
participate. ‘ C ivil society' comes to be represented in a variety °*
ways; by individuals speaking about and for themselves, by nominated
representatives from non-governm ental organizations, by elected
representatives from neighbourhood associations, by m em bers of col'
lective actors such as unions or movements, and other variants besides-
Th ere is evidence o f tension resulting from the different sources
legitim acy that underpin claims to speak and act as representatives*
inclusionary aspirations or objectives may conflict with claims based c>n
the legitim acy afforded by evidence o f com m itted action on the Pal r
o f m arginalized groups (chapters by Barnes, and Castello et al.)-
 The extensive literature 011 representation offers a range o f per­
spectives 011 how best to ensure the inclusion o f less organized
and vocal groups. There is a current that argues for a more direct
democratic approach: participatory sphere institutions should be
open to everyone w ho wants to participate. Some point out the
risk self-selection poses for favouring those with most resources, and
propose methods o f random selection that seek to mirror the makeup
o f the population (Fishkin and Luskin 1999). Others focus less 011
the methods o f selection and more on incentives, concentrating the
focus o f fora on questions o f particular interest to poorer citizens
(Fung 2003).This current is counterposed to arguments that the very
process o f creating a basis for representation for marginalized social
groups is only possible if there is a parallel process o f mobilization
and definition o f collective identities and agendas.
Across our cases, there is a diversity o f forms o f representation that
speak to both these perspectives. Mahmud describes how in C o m ­
munity Groups managing village-level health services in Bangladesh
individuals speaking as ‘community representatives’ are generally elites
- professionals, teachers, wealthy farmers and their wives - appointed
by the chairman. In W illiams’s account o f South African health
facilities boards (HFBs), those who speak for patients’ interests are
more likely to be working for community health than representing
particular social groups. Castello et al.’s chapter offers a different
perspective, from a context that is markedly different: Brazil’s largest
city, São Paulo, where ‘citizen participation’ generally refers to the
engagement o f registered civil society organizations, o f which there
are many hundreds. Their findings shed further light on questions
o f representation in the participatory sphere. Less than 5 per cent
o f the organizations surveyed represented themselves as descriptive
representatives; and a similarly small number saw themselves in classic
electoral terms. For almost half, the vast majority, representation was
about mediation. Such organizations saw themselves as about advocat­
ing for the rights o f others, and providing a bridge between poorly
or under-represented segments o f the population and the state.
The experiences brought together in this book point to trade-offs
that need to be taken into account when examining the capacity
o f the participatory sphere to promote the inclusion o f sectors o f
society that have traditionally been marginalized. To what extent, for
example, would a preference for forums where the public come to be
represented by methods o f random selection open the doors o f these
institutions for those w ho may otherwise find it difficult to enter (see
Fishkin and Luskin 1999)? And to what extent would this reproduce
the highly asymmetrical distribution o f social, sym bolic, political a n d
econom ic resources that exist in society at large, unm ediated by
practices o f organizing that can lend more m arginalized actors the
skills to participate effectively? It is one thing for citizens to e n t e r
participatory fora to inform themselves and generate opinions from
reasoned discussion, and another again for these discussions to consist
o f debates am ong politicized collective actors w ith strongly p o la r iz e d

positions. Th e challenge associated with the first situation is how to

foment processes in which poorer and m ore m arginalized citizens
can find their voice; that o f the second is the risk o f contributing
the radicalization and amplification o f the pow er o f veto of groups
w ho feel themselves to be on the margins politically, w hich can
substantially restrict the democratic potential o f these arenas.
Deliberative democrats w ould argue that providing p a r t i c i p a n t s
with sufficient inform ation and access to expertise, and seeking
encourage them to form positions during discussions rather than t0
bring pre-prepared positions and agendas w ith them , can instil ne"'
norms o f conduct (Fung 2003). G o o d facilitation can play a hugety
important role. Techniques that are explicitly oriented to a m p lify ^
the voices o f the least vocal enhance the possibilities o f d e l i b e r a t i o n ,
allow ing positions to be openly debated rather than defensively
asserted. And the introduction o f innovative interactive practices can
begin to change the culture o f interaction in the participatory sphere
countering the reproduction o f old hierarchies and exclusions, and
enabling a greater diversity o f voices to be heard.
Yet, at the same time, it is evident that sonic actors inevitably
arrive at the table w ith ideas, impressions and know ledge that n°
am ount o f facilitation or deliberation can budge; to expect any leSS
is to depoliticize profoundly the process o f deliberation, as well aS
to shunt out o f the frame preferences, beliefs and alliances that afc
by their very nature political. Those w ho have some resources - tor
exam ple, links w ith the party political system or powerful p a t r o l
- stand better placed to expand their chances o f access to these fonj
to advance their own agendas. Affiliation to other societally produce
. . . il 'lJ *
means o f organizing collective interests, w hether mass-based popu
movem ents or form al political parties, are never sim ply left at ^ '
door w hen people com e to deliberate, as C o rn w all’s, R o d g e r s s,
Barnes’s studies show. Understanding the politics o f these spa
requires closer attention to political networks that span the state,
participatory and public spheres, and to the implications o f the
articulations they make possible.
Von Lieres and Kahane’s study o f a national-level deliberative
process in Canada raises a further question: to what extent are the
rules o f the game adopted to facilitate inclusive deliberation cultural
artefacts - and how do they implicitly exclude other culturally defined
ways o f thinking about representation? The R om anow Com m is­
sion’s review o f Canada’s healthcare system failed, they contend, to
take seriously enough how marginalization may be perpetuated in
deliberative spaces. By enlisting citizens as individuals, the dialogue
failed to give Aboriginal people sufficient opportunity for voice,
precisely because the individualistic premisses o f the method used
clashed with indigenous forms o f group-based representation that
works through affiliation. Their analysis highlights the significance o f
responsiveness to culturally located forms o f organization, representa­
tion and deliberation, as well as the importance o f the creation o f
spaces for what they call ‘affiliated’ marginalized citizens.
Jane M ansbridge suggests that in ‘com m unicative settings o f
distrust, uncrystallised interests and historically denigrated status’ (2000:
99), descriptive representation - the representation o f a social group
by those from that social group who speak as, as well as for, that
group - is necessary if substantive attention is to be given to the
issues that affect this group. It is precisely this kind o f setting that
W illiams’s account addresses, and he highlights a series o f factors that
conspire to exclude black participants from being able to engage in
a ‘politics o f presence’ : a lack o f associations that can put forward
black interests, a mismatch between mechanisms for enlistment and
forms o f communication that would reach black citizens, historical
domination o f similar institutions by middle-class whites - often
o f the do-gooder variety, whose concern for ‘poor black people’
eclipses black citizens’ capacity to represent their own interests and
needs - and internalized disprivilege, with entailments in terms o f
self-confidence and capacity to associate and voice demands. As
Phillips (1995) argues, a ‘politics o f presence’ offers both the symbolic
value o f visibility and the possibility o f more vigorous advocacy o f
the interests o f otherwise excluded groups. In this setting, Williams
contends, it is precisely this that is needed.
In a critique o f Habermas’s (1984) notion o f the public sphere,
Fraser argues that marginalized groups may find greater opportunities

IESP/UERJ BIBLIOTECA
for exercising voice through creating their own spaces, w hich she terms
‘subaltern counterpublics’ . She suggests that these spaces have ‘a dual
character. O n the one hand, they function as spaces o f withdrawal
and regroupm ent; on the other hand, they also function as bases
and training groups for agitational activities directed toward wider
publics’ (1992: 124). Mansbridge (2000) highlights another dim en­
sion o f such spaces: as ‘laboratories o f self-interest’ they can enable
historically marginalized groups to build positions, construct a politics
o f engagem ent and gain greater legitimacy to voice demands within
participatory sphere institutions. Such spaces can com e to serve a
politics o f transformation by giving previously excluded groups the
time and opportunity to construct their political preferences and
express their concerns for themselves. T h ey can also provide an arena
for m aking demands and concerns legible to the state.
Mobilization creates not only a shared language but also oppor­
tunities for political apprenticeship and the conditions under which
new leaders can emerge. In many o f our cases it is activist N G O s
that have taken the lead in creating these spaces. But, as Mohanty.
Barnes and Cornw all emphasize, the state has a crucial role to play
in redressing societal discrimination and actively supporting inclusion
o f marginalized groups in political arenas o f all kinds (Young 2000)-
As Heller (2001) argues, closer attention needs to be paid to synergies
between social movements and state-supported political projects i*1
fostering the substantive participation o f subaltern actors.

E n g a g i n g the State

Greater attention has been given in w ork 011 participatory sphere

institutions to social actors than to the state actors w hose committed
involvem ent is so decisive for their success (Abers 2 0 0 1; Fox 199^»
H eller 2001). M ahm ud’s case study o f citizen m obilization in the
absence o f engaged state actors shows critical limitations to achieving
changes in health delivery if those w ho plan and deliver services are
not part o f the discussion, and the significance o f recognition and
institutional support by the state for the viability o f participator)'
institutions. C o elh o highlights the significance o f public officials
com m itm ent as a co-factor in producing successful and inclusive
participatory fora. Barnes details what such actors contribute t0
m aking participation m eaningful. But surprisingly little is k n o "'11
 «about what drives these actors to defend social participation as a
political project. What is it that motivates state officials to participate
and to follow through decisions arrived at in these spaces? What
makes bureaucrats amenable to what can end up being long and
convoluted deliberative processes, rather than resorting to quicker
and more authoritarian decision-making processes? What incentives
motivate them to invest in creating a more enabling environment and
act in the interests o f poorer and more marginalized citizens? And
what do they get out o f participating in the participatory sphere?
The commitment o f politicians and bureaucrats to participatory
governance needs to be analysed against a backdrop o f a com plex
conjunction o f variables. These include the values and party political
affiliations o f these actors, attempts to influence and gain information
about public opinion, and the structure o f opportunities defined by
the political system (Skocpol and Fiorina 1999). Where preferences
are unstable, it may be expedient for politicians to seek means
o f securing opportunities to influence as well as respond to the
concerns o f the electorate. Participatory sphere institutions may offer
such an opportunity if they are well grounded in relationships with
broader constituencies and communities; it may well be in politicians’
interests to seek to enhance their viability (Heller 2001; Mansbridge
2003). As such, they form one way o f discovering what influences
electoral preferences - alongside instruments such as opinion polls
or focus groups.
Yet an ostensible commitment to participatory governance can in
itself also pay political dividends. Politicians and senior bureaucrats
can adopt the mantle o f participation to give themselves distinctive
public identities as champions for the cause o f open and accountable
government. In Brazil, for example, claims to be promoting popular
participation appear on many a municipal government logo, and have
been the leftist Workers’ Party’s badge o f respectability as well as,
arguably, a factor in their electoral success in the past. Politicians may
seek new allies in participatory arenas, whether against other politi­
cians or to control the bureaucracy; in turn, participatory bureaucrats
may seek similar kinds o f alliances, whether against elitist politicians
and bureaucrats or to gain support and legitimacy. Participation as a
political project can be seen, then, as a strategy that seeks to cultivate
allies, strengthen networks and gain votes.
‘Champions o f change’ within bureaucracies play a crucial role
in creating and resourcing spaces for change, and as such become
allies for social m ovements and civil society (Fox 1996). Indeed, state
support and recognition are needed if these spaces are to function at
all, as M ahm ud points out. Infrastructural support, funding for public
events, and for training and transport to carry out consultations or
inspect facilities are tangible measures o f com m itm ent; they are also
essential for the very viability o f these institutions. But there are other
dimensions to constructive state engagement. As Barnes suggests, this
may be as much about redressing disciplinary tendencies, valuing
diverse forms o f dialogue and expression, and m odifying the official
norm s and rules that often com e to dominate participatory sphere
institutions as about offering citizens opportunities to participate.
T h e personal and political com m itm ent o f state officials to the
participatory project not only makes this support and engagement
possible, it also contributes to their w illingness and capacity to
be responsive. Cornw all shows how a com plex mesh o f ideology»
party-political affiliations and personal and professional biases appear
in Brazilian bureaucrats’ and health w orkers’ accounts of their role
in a municipal health council. She argues that to see these spaces
purely in terms o f their citizen participants is to miss an important
dimension o f their dem ocratizing effects.
T h e politics o f inclusion by the state invites further complexities-
Von Lieres argues, for South Africa, that in a political context that
features prevailing expectations o f the non-bindingness o f public
deliberation, a history o f distrust and m anipulation, a lack o f viable
social mobilization to articulate demands, and residual authoritarian
and paternalist tendencies in the conduct o f state officials, participa'
tory arenas may simply reinforce relations o f pow er patterned by
experiences in other institutional spaces, rather than create viable
arenas for democratization. It may well be that it is in these other
spaces - such as those o f oppositional social m ovem ents and popular
protest - that those w ho are silent find their political agency, develop
their skills and nourish their passion for engagem ent (see M oufte
2002). Yet in bridging these arenas and those o f the participatory
sphere, there may be much at stake. D ryzek (1996) argues that the
price o f inclusion may be high for groups w hose agendas diverg
so significantly from state priorities that entry risks co-option anL
dem oralization. For some groups, and for som e issues, investment
in engagem ent with the state may fail to pay o ff as energies are
diverted into backwaters that detract from larger political stru ggle
(Taylor 1998). Barnes’s analysis o f the transformation o f an institutio*
 initiated by citizens in the U K into a government-sponsored forum
demonstrates one o f the most evident consequences: a loss o f social
energy as seeping bureaucratization kills o ff spontaneity and creativity,
leaving such an institution a pale shell o f its form er self.
Von Lieres’s account o f the South African Treatment Action
Cam paign (TAC) shows how engagement at multiple interfaces
with the state - from the courts and the streets to the clinic — may
offer greater prospects for extending the boundaries o f the political
(Melucci 1996). It is, she argues, in their capacity to intermediate,
to work across arenas with a politics o f identification that brings
together a diverse spectrum o f interest groups, that their efficacy
lies. As the T A C case shows, strategic participation may come to
depend 011 the exercise o f agency outside the participatory arena,
to lever pressure for change (Cortez 2004). Barnes’s account high­
lights the significance o f the construction and mobilization o f an
‘oppositional consciousness’ as a means o f animating participation
(see M ouffe 2002). But, as she points out, this in itself poses new
challenges for state actors, including the need for skills for creative
conflict m anagement to work constructively with oppositional
positions without dousing their passion, and for acknowledging a
plurality o f discursive styles, rather than trying to manage voices
into ‘acceptable’ versions. Intermediation is required within as well
as across sites for engagement if participation is to produce better
mutual understanding between the diversity o f actors within the
participatory sphere.

Conclusion

The normative expectations o f deliberative and participatory democ­

racy find weak support in the findings o f the studies o f everyday
experiences o f participatory governance in this book. But, despite
considerable shortcomings, the cases presented here give some cause
for optimism. Their very ordinariness tells other stories: o f incremental
change, o f a growing sense o f entitlement to participate, o f slow but
real shifts in political agency. They reveal glimpses o f how open­
ing up previously inaccessible decision-making processes to public
engagement can stimulate the creation o f new political subjects as
well as new subjectivities and, with it, deepen democracy along all
three o f D ryzek’s axes.
 W hat does it take for participation in the participatory sphere
to offer real prospects for change in the status quo for historically
marginalized social groups? C oelho shows here how it is the conjunction
o f enabling policies and legal frameworks, com m itted and responsive
bureaucrats, well-coordinated, articulate social actors and inclusive in­
stitutional designs that produces greater diversity am ong representatives,
thus expanding access if not the influence o f historically marginalized
groups.Yet these co-factors do not add up to a one-size-fits-all recipe.
C o n text matters. In many o f the cases in this book, a num ber o f these
factors are striking in their absence. In contexts such as Bangladesh
and Angola, ineffective, under-resourced and corrupt state structures
fracture the possibilities for responsiveness. In contexts like the UK,
India, South Africa and Brazil w here the state is relatively strong, a tear
o f letting go o f control, high levels o f bureaucratization and embedded
aspects o f political culture provide potent obstacles to the participation
o f traditionally excluded citizens.
These contrasts urge that more attention be paid to the contingen­
cies of political culture. T h ey underline the need for any analysis of
participation to be set within the histories o f state-society relations
that have shaped the configurations and contestations o f the present-
Political histories and cultures — o f struggle as o f subjugation, of
authoritarian rule as o f political apathy - may em bed dispositions in
state and societal actors that are carried into spaces for participation-
These may make alliances w ith state actors or forms o f collaboration
difficult to realize, especially for groups w hose right to participate at
all has been persistently denied in the past. C h an gin g political culture
calls for changes ‘ on both sides o f the equation’ (Gaventa 2004).
Gaventa’s equation highlights the m u tu a lly constitutive relatio n sh ip
between state responsiveness and citizen m obilization. Contextual
facto rs modify the possibilities o f this relatio n sh ip . W h e re state capacity
is attenuated by under-resourcing, corruption or plain in e ffe ctiv en e ss,
citizens may mobilize to provide for themselves; w here cultures of
paternalism, patrimonialism or authoritarianism persist, som e citizens
m ay gear themselves up for a fight but others may never enter tin
fray. W h a t a number o f the cases in this book show is that in such
contexts, the introduction o f new political practices, new spaces f ° r
the articulation o f concerns and interests, and new o p p o r t u n i t é
for political apprenticeship can begin a process o f change that may
have broader ripple effects. T h ey point to shifts that have b e g u n t
reconfigure dem ocratic engagem ent.
 The routinization o f discussion about public policies in the partici­
patory sphere has successfully served to broaden debate beyond more
closed technical and political spaces, as Coelho, von Lieres and Kahane,
R oq u e and Shankland, Barnes, and Rodgers show. Certain conditions
amplify possibilities for change: mobilized collective actors (Castello et
al.; von Lieres; Rodgers; Cornwall); state actors interested in building
longer-term alliances with civil society (Coelho; Barnes; Cornwall);
institutional design characteristics that contribute to reducing asym­
metric distribution o f resources among participants (Coelho; von
Lieres and Kahane); and opportunities to influence resource allocation
as well as the shape o f public policies (Rodgers; Barnes). O ur cases
also show that other, more contingent, factors can alter the balance o f
power.These may be unintended consequences, such as th e ‘mutations’
described by R oque and Shankland or the processes o f politicization
that accompany resource negotiations analysed by Rodgers, whose net
effects are ‘unexpected democratization’ . O r they may be the subtle
shifts that new discourses o f rights, social justice and citizenship create
as they circulate through networks that support different social actors
and expand their interpretive and political horizons.
Participatory sphere institutions can become ‘schools for citizen­
ship’ - in the words o f a Brazilian activist cited by Cornw all - in
which those who participate learn new meanings and practices o f
citizenship by working together. The sheer diversity o f actors and
positions within this sphere offer opportunities for developing an
‘expanded understanding’ (Arendt 1958) that allows people to see
beyond their own immediate problems or professional biases. As
R odgers, Barnes and Cornwall observe, participants in these spaces
bring commitment to them and talk o f getting an enormous amount
o f personal fulfilment out o f their engagement. Interactions in this
sphere can help change dispositions among bureaucrats as well as
citizens, instilling greater respect, and enhancing their propensity
to listen and commitment to respond. Yet much depends 011 the
openness and capacity o f the state. Where entrenched inequalities and
the postures and practices o f state officials mute marginal voices, and
where little willingness or capacity exists to redress these inequali­
ties and address the specific concerns o f these groups, other spaces
outside these arenas become especially critical: as sites both in which
to gain confidence and consolidate positions and from which to act
on other parts o f the state through other forms o f political action,
including strategic non-participation (Cortez 2004).
 O u r studies show that pervasive inequalities in pow er and knowl­
edge and embedded political cultures pose considerable challenges tor
creating inclusive deliberative fora. T h ey suggest that even in cases
w here there is considerable political will to ensure the viability of
these institutions, inequalities o f power and know ledge and embedded
technocracy affect their dem ocratizing prospects. W hat do they tell us
about how these inequalities can be addressed and how marginalized
groups can becom e more m eaningfully involved? T h e first step is
to guarantee a place at the table for such groups, through rules ot
engagem ent as well as o f selection that seek to broaden participation
beyond established interest groups. This, in turn, requires processes
that can build the capabilities o f more m arginalized actors to use
their voices and that extend capacity building efforts to state officials,
as much to unlearn attitudes as to acquire the capacity to listen to
citizens and recognize their rights.
Th e challenge for expanding dem ocracy through the participatory
sphere may be less the extent to w hich dem ocratic institutions
can bring about change than which changes in whom and in whose
interests. An ever-present dilemma is how to insulate these spaces
from capture by non-dem ocratic elements, including administrations
that simply use them for therapeutic or rubber-stam ping purposes
(Arnstein 19 7 1). Another is how to guarantee their political efficacy
and viability, and address some o f the very real tensions that arise
between short-term and long-term solutions, betw een inclusiveness
and effectiveness, between struggle and n egotiation.T he very newness
o f many o f these institutions, the weakness o f their institutional
designs and the limited purposes for w hich som e o f them were
originally created have tended to create fragile connections, if aI1V’
with the formal architecture o f governance. This creates a number
o f problems, including the difficulty o f ensuring the democratic
legitim acy o f decisions made in fora that bypass electoral and parlin"
mentary mechanisms o f representation (D ryzek 20 0 1; de Vita 2004)-
Ultimately, the extent that the participatory sphere is able to promote
legitim ate representation and distributional justice may depend nor
m erely on how each space within it perform s, but on relationship5
with other institutions within the public sphere and the state.
Am plifying the democratic potential and enhancing the d em o cratic
legitim acy o f the participatory sphere, the cases presented here suggest’
need to take place on three fronts: catalysing and supporting p r o c e s s e s
o f social mobilization through w hich marginalized groups can nurtu»
 new leaders, enhance their political agency and seek representation
in these arenas as well as efficacy outside them; instituting measures
to address exclusionary elements within the institutional structure
o f the participatory sphere, from rules o f representation to strategies
that foster more inclusive deliberation, such as the use o f facilitation;
and articulating participatory sphere institutions more effectively with
other governance institutions, providing them with resources as well
as with political ‘teeth’ . It is with addressing these challenges - for
theory, as well as for practice - that future directions for participatory
governance lie.

N o te s

Wo would like to thank the ‘Spaces for Ch ange’ working group o f the
Developm ent Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and A cco u n t­
ability. and John Gaventa, D R C Director, for all their contributions to the
ideas presented in this chapter. O u r analysis benefited from the comments
o f John Gaventa, Peter Houtzager, David Kahane, Ranjita M ohanty and
Ian Scoones, to w hom we are very grateful.
1. We are grateful to Marcus M elo for this point.
2. T h e genealogy o f w riting 011 participatory democracy can be traced back
to Aristotle, and has its more recent roots in the work o f Pateman (1970)
and M acPherson ( 1973)-
3. Indeed, as D ryzek points out, public policy is not indeterminate and there
are ‘ certain imperatives that all states simply must meet’ (2000: 93).
4. T h e term ‘invited spaces’ originates in joint work with Karen Brock and
John Gaventa (Brock, Cornwall and Gaventa 20 0 1; Cornw all 2002; Gaventa
2004).

References

Abers, R . (2001) Inventing Local Democracy: Grassroots Politics in Brazil, Boulder

C O : W estview Press.
Acharya, A .. P. Houtzager and A . Gurza Lavalle (2004) ‘Civil society representation
in the participatory budget and deliberative councils ot São Paulo, Brazil ,
I D S Bulletin 35(2): 4 0 -4 8 .
Ackerman, J. (2004) ‘ Co-governance for accountability: beyond “ exit and “ voice” ’,
IVorltl Development 32(3): 4 4 7 -6 3 .
Arendt, H. (19 58 ) The Human Condition, Chicago: University o f C h icago Press.
Arnstein, S .R . (19 7 1) ‘ A ladder o f participation in the U S A '.Jo u rn a l o f the Royal
Town Planning Institute, April: 17 6 -8 2 .
Alvarez, S., E. Dagnino and A . Escobar, eds (1998) Cultures o f Politics/Politics o f
Cultures: Revisioning Latin American Social Movements, Boulder C O : W estview
Press.
A vritzer, L. (2002) Democracy and the Public Spacc in Liitin A m erica. Princeton:
Princeton U niversity Press.
B aocch i, G . (20 01) ‘ Participation, activism, and politics: the Porto A legre experi­
ment and deliberative dem ocratic th eo ry’ . Politics and Society 2 9 (1): 4 3 - 7 2 .
Blair, H . (2000) ‘ Participation and accountability at the p erip h ery’ . World Develop­
ment 2 8 (1): 2 1 - 3 9 .
B rock, K ., A . C o rn w all and J. Gaventa (2001) ‘ Power, kn ow led ge and political
spaces in the framing o f poverty policy’ , ID S W orking Paper N o . 14 3 . Institute
o f Developm ent Studies, University o f Sussex, Falmer.
Bourdieu, P. (19 7 7 ) O utline o f a Theory o f Practice, C am b rid ge: C am b rid ge Uni­
versity Press.
B o h m a n .J., and W. R eh g , eds (19 9 7) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and
Politics, Cam bridge M A : M I T Press.
C h a m b e rs, R . (19 9 7 ) Whose R ea lity Counts: Putting the Eirst L is t , L o n d o n : Inter­
m ed iate T ech n o lo gy' P u b licatio n s.
Chandoke, N . (2003) The Conceits o f C iv il Society, D elhi: O x fo rd U n ive rsity

Press.
Chaudhuri, S., and P. Heller (2002) ‘T h e plasticity o f participation: evidence
from a participatory governance exp erim en t’ . D epartm en t ot Economics.
Colum bia University, mim eo.
Coelho, V.S. (2 0 0 4 ),‘ Brazil’s health councils: the challenge ot building participa*
tory political institutions’ , I D S Bulletin 35(2): 3 3 - 9 .
C.oelho, V .S., and M . N obre, eds (2004) Participação e Deliberação: Teoria DemocratlO1
e Experiências Institucionais no Brasil Contemporâneo [Participation and delibera*
tion: democratic theory and institutional experiences in contem p orary Brazil)’
São Paulo: 34 Letras.
C o h en , J.L ., and A . Arato (19 9 2) C iv il Society and Political T heory, C a m b rid g e
M A : M I T Press.
C o h e n , J., and C . Sabel (19 9 7) ‘ D irectly-deliberative polyarchy’ , European L*1'1
Jo u rn a l 3(4): 3 1 3 - 4 2 .
Co rn w all, A . (2002) ‘ M aking spaces, chan gin g places: situating participation 1,1
developm ent’ , ID S W orking Paper N o . 1 7 3 . Institute o f D evelopm en t Studied
U niversity o f Sussex, Falmer.
C o rn w all, A ., and V.S. C o elho , eds (2 0 0 4 ),‘ N e w dem ocratic spaces?’ , I D S Bu lk’11"
35(2).
C o rte z, C . R . (2004) ‘ Social strategies and public policies in an indigenous zon1
in Chiapas, M e x ic o ’ , I D S Bulletin 35(2): 7 6 - 8 3 .
C ro o k . R ., and A . Sverisson (2003) ‘ D oes decentralization contribute to poverO
reduction? Su rveyin g the evidence,’ in P. H o u tzager and M . M o o re,
C hanging Paths: International D evelopm ent and the Politics o f Inclusion, A n n Arbor'
U niversity o f M ichigan Press.
C u n ill, N . (19 9 7 ) Repensando lo público a través de la sociedad, C a ra c a s: N u eVJ
Im ag e n .
D agnino, E. (2005) ‘ W e all have r ig h t s ... but: contesting concepts o f citizenshU
111 Brazil’ , in N . Kabeer, ed., Inclusive C itizen sh ip : M eanings and E x p r e s s ^ '
Lo n d o n : Z e d Books,
de V ita, Á . (2004) ‘ D em o cracia deliberativa 011 igualdade de oportun id ad e
 políticas?’ , in V.S. Co elho and M . Nobre, Participação c Deliberação: Teoria
Democrática e Experiências Institucionais no Brasil Contemporâneo, São Paulo: 34
Letras.
D ryzek, J.S. (1996) ‘ Political inclusion and the dynamics o f democratization’ ,
.American Political Science R eview 90(3): 4 7 5 -8 7 .
D ryzek, J.S. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations,
O xfo rd : Oxford University Press.
D ryzek, J.S. (2 0 0 1).‘ Legitim acy and econom y in deliberative dem ocracy’ . Political
Theory, O ctober: 6 5 1-6 9 .
Edwards, M . (2004) C iv il Society, Cam bridge: Polity Press.
Fischer. F. (2000) Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics o f Local K n ow l­
edge, Durham N C : Duke University Press.
Fishkin, J., and R . Luskin (1999) ‘T h e quest for deliberative dem ocracy’ , The
G ood Society 9(1): 1 -9 .
Foucault, M . (19 9 1) ‘ Governmentality’ , in G. Burchell, C . Gordon and P. Miller,
eds. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Chicago: University o f
C h icago Press.
Fox, J. (1996) ‘ Flow does civil society thicken? T h e political construction o f
social capital in M e x ic o ’ , World Development 24: 10 8 9 -10 3 .
Fraser, N . (1992) ‘ R ethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique
o f actually existing dem ocracy’ , in C . Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public
Sphere, Cam bridge, M A : M I T Press.
Fung, A . (2003) ‘Survey article: recipes for public spheres: eight institutional design
choices and their consequences’ , Jou rnal o f Philosophy 11(3 ): 3 3S—67.
Fung, A ., and E.O . W right, eds (2003) Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovation
in Em powered Participatory Governance, London: Verso.
Gaventa, J. (2004) ‘Towards participatory governance: assessing the transformative
possibilities’, in S. Hickey and G. M ohan, eds, From Tyranny to Transformation,
London: Z ed Books.
Gaventa, J. (2005) ‘ D eepening the deepening democracy debate’ , Institute o f
Developm ent Studies, University o f Sussex, Falmer, mimeo.
du Gay, Paul (2000) In Praise o f Bureaucracy: Weber, Organization, Ethics, London:
Sage.
G oetz, A .-M ., and J. Gaventa (2001), ‘ Bringing citizen voice and client focus
into service delivery’ , ID S Working Paper No. 138, Institute o f Developm ent
Studies, University o f Sussex, Falmer.
Goetz, A .- M ., and R . Jenkins (2004) Reinventing Accountability: M aking Democracy
Work for the Poor, London: Macmillan/Palgrave.
Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory o f Communicative Action, London: Heinemann.
Hajer, M ., and H .W agenaar, eds (2003) Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding
Governance in the N etwork Society, Cam bridge: Cam bridge University Press.
Heller, P. (2001) 'M o v in g the state: the politics ot democratic decentralization in
Kerala, South Africa, and Porto Alegre’ , Politics & Society 29(1): 1 3 1 —6 3.
Houtzager, P. (2003) ‘ Introduction: from polycentrism to the polity’ , in P. H o ut-
zager and M . M oore, eds, Changing Paths: International Development and the
N e w Politics oj Inclusion, Ann Arbor: M ichigan University Press.
Houtzager, P., A. Gurza Lavalle and A . Acharya (2004) ‘Atores da sociedade civil e
 atores políticos - participação nas novas políticas dem ocráticas cm São Paulo’,
in L. Avritzer, ed., Participação Política cm São Paulo, São Paulo: U N E S P .
Im m ergut, E .M . (19 92) Health Politics: Interest and Institutions in Western Europe,
C am b rid ge: Cam b rid ge University Press.
Kabeer, N ., ed. (2005) Inclusive C itizenship: M eanings and Expressions. London: |
Z e d Books.
K o h n , M . (2000) ‘ Language, pow er and persuasion: toward a critique o f delibera­
tive d em o cracy’ , Constellations 7(3): 4 0 8 -2 9 .
Lefebvre, H . (19 9 1) The Production o f Space, O xfo rd : Blackw ell.
M anor, J. (2004) ‘ User committees: a potentially dam aging second w ave ot de­
centralization?’ , European Jo u rn a l o f Developm ent Research 14(2).
M ansbridge, J. (1999) ‘ O n the idea that participation makes better citizens’ , in
S. Elkin and K. Soltan, eds, C itizen Competence and Democratic Institutions,
University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
M ansbridge, J . (20 0 0 ) W hat does a representative dor D e s c r i p t i v e r e p re s e n ta tio n
in com m unicative settings o f distrust, uncrystallized interests, and historically
denigrated status’ , C itizenship in Diverse Societies, M arch : 9 9 —1 2 4 .
Mansbridge, J. (2003) ‘ R eth in kin g representation’ , Am erican Political Science Review
97(4) N ovem ber: 5 1 5 - 2 8 .
M acPherson, C .B . (19 73 ) Democratic Theory: Essays in R etrieval, O x fo rd : Oxford
U n iv e rsity Press.
M e lu c c i, A . (1996) C hallenging C o des: Collective Action in the Information
C a m b rid g e : C a m b rid g e U n iv e r s ity Press.
M ouffe, C . (2002) ‘ Politics and passions: the states o f d em o cracy ’ . C e n tre tor tin-'
Study o f D em ocracy, London.
Pateman, C . (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory, C am b rid g e : C am b rid g e
University Press.
Phillips, A . (19 95) T he Politics o f Presence, O xfo rd : O x fo rd U n iversity Press.
Piven, F. Fox, and R . Clow ard ( 19 7 1) Regulating the Poor: T h e Functions of Pid’l'1
Welfare, N e w York: R an d o m House.
Skocpol, T., and M.P. Fiorina (1999) ‘ M ak in g sense o f the civic engagement
debate’ , in T. Skocpol and M.P. Fiorina, eds, C iv ic Engagem ent in A m erica1
Democracy, W ashington D C : Brookings Institution Press.
T arro w , S. (19 9 4 ) Power in M ovem ent: Social Movements, Collective Action and Pohdiir
C a m b rid g e : C a m b rid g e U n iv e r sity Press.
Taylor, L. (1998) C itizenship, Participation and Democracy: C h angin g Dynamics 1,1
C h ile and Argentina, London: M acm illan.
T h o m p so n , J. (19 9 5 ) ‘ Participatory approaches in go vern m en t b u r e a u c r a c i L'v
facilitating the p r o c e s s o f institutional ch an ge’ , World D evelopm ent 2 3 (^ '
1521- 54-
T v e d t.T . (19 98 ), ‘ N G O s ’ role at the ‘ end of history’ : N o rw e g ia n policy and f 1L
n ew paradigm ’ , in F. Hossain and S. M yllyla, eds, N G O s I Jnder C hallcitf1 '
Dynam ics and Drawbacks in Developm ent, H elsinki: M in istry for Foreign ^
fairs o f Finland.
U N D P (2003) H um an Developm ent Report, N e w York: U N D P .
W arren, M . (2000) Democracy and Association, Prin ceton : P rin ceton University
Press.
World Bank (2001) World Development Report 20 00/2001: Attacking Poverty, N e w
York: O xford University Press.
Young, I.M . (19 9 6 ),‘ Com m unication and the other: beyond deliberative dem oc­
racy’ , in Seyla Benhabib, ed., Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries
o f the Political, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Young, I.M . (2000) Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford: O xford University Press.
Young. I.M . (2004) ‘ R ep ly to Bohman, Drexler and H am es-Garcia’, The G ood
Society 13(2): 6 1 - 3 .