**5. Participation**

Participation is certainly a concept with a wide range of use and meanings [24] and has remained a difficult concept to pin down to a single definition if not a vague concept altogether as Crocker [25], recognizes with reference to Agarwal [26], and Alkire [27]. Chambers [28] is worried that even among academics who ought to know better, there is growing imprecise usage of the concept of participation. Often, its meaning is rendered to correspond to the interest defining it. Chambers [28] in a bid to cite examples of participation, presents two streams of initiatives, communication, and resources3 identifiable in East Africa during the 1960s. These were the top-down and the bottom-up streams.

Chambers [28] narrates that in a certain East African community certain initiatives, communication and resources were generated from forums that were formed to facilitate discussions concerning development matters between local level staff and political leaders. The participants of these forums were members of what is called development committees. These forums were either large political forums or smaller concentrations of civil servants. During these forums, the chairman in skillful rhetoric, would enumerate certain identified social needs, and put forward the methods and techniques to address them. The other members would either support the chairman's ideas or augment them constructively offering little or no resistance to the ideas tabled. In another instance, responses to general social needs come in the form of block grants4 , which might be funds set aside for development purposes or Official Development Assistance (ODA). When the local development committees received such funds, they would undertake some action. One of the actions would be to commit the fund to development initiatives. This happened often with a lot of shortcomings.

These two instances are categorized as top-down. The determining factor of people's participation in a top-down stream is pinned down to the composition of membership and procedures governing the operation, resources, nature and strength of popular demands including the local institutions and interest groups through which they are articulated. The procedures, which Chambers refers to are quite complex and vary from one case of participation to another. However, from what is

<sup>3</sup> Initiatives, communications, and resources are simply terms covering the outcomes of the exercise described. They may include such outcomes as techniques to be used for getting the cooperation of the community or how best the problems of the community can be addressed.

<sup>4</sup> Block grants include funds given for the purpose of development. Many of the developing countries receive these grants from different donors including the World Bank, IMF, UN, OECD countries, NGOs, etc.

*Responding Creatively to Faulty Corporate Social Responsibility Practices: The Case of Nigeria's… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106249*

described above, one thing that appears obvious is that the stream of initiative, communication and resources flows from top to down. That is from a 'generous elite' to a 'humble local non-elite receiver'.

Another stream of initiatives, communication and resources occurred whenever the government or parties fell short of fulfilling the aspirations of the people. There seems to be a rise and vigor of self-help projects in reaction to an impotent leadership. In the absence of alternative effective and reliable means of getting what they want, "clans, churches and other groupings have identified themselves, organized, worked and competed for government and other external resources" [28].

Chambers sites the example of the *mabati* groups of women, which began by "working together to raise funds to put iron (*mabati*) roofs on their members' houses". From there "they moved on to buying grade cattle, fencing dips, building better kitchens and demanding the services of community development, health, veterinary and home economics staff" [28].

Self-help instances of this kind are valuable in providing opportunities for development and releasing pressure on overextended government agencies. They are also valuable in increasing the competence and confidence of a group and its members in handling their affairs. It equally shows how one success can lead to another. These are some examples of what is referred to as participatory development. Chambers identifies the problems that may be associated with participation both at a top-down and at the bottom-up streams. At the top-down stream is primarily, the inability of the committee forums to diversify decision-making. This is coupled with the inability of the committee to find the right balance to the sums involved. There is then the problem of control of the devolution of the funds down the hierarchy.

At the bottom-up stream, the problem is mainly associated with the government. It is discussed under four different headings including: control and planning; authoritarianism; implementation; and operation and maintenance [28]. The summary is that when initiatives are taken from local communities, the government feels threatened. The threat is often about the possibility of such community mobilizations escalating to a more political agitation that might lead to an attempt to wrest power from the government. However, Chambers goes on to speak about bad self-help and the need for administrative control and mediation in self-help. In the same vein, he speaks of avoidance of 'top-down targetry', which has to do with extortion and exploitation of people in the name of self-help. These are some of the problems associated with participation.

Chambers [28] proposes a number of measures to address these problem issues. These range from rules that may guide the allocation of funds in accordance with the measure of access to population (access to greater population should take precedence), to contributions to projects (it should be considered in relation to economic status). They also range from policies for participation (to be considered in relation to the stage of development), to radical orientation of staff activities, (those highly developed stage areas require this more). Finally, they range from tackling of the problem of invisibility of poverty to field staff by preparatory work, to design testing and modification of procedures.

Both the top-down and the bottom-up streams of participation are burdened with difficulties, raising questions as to whether participation is a means or an end in itself? Is it an academic concept or a truly empowering process necessary for the reduction of the imbalance in the global resource distribution and access? Is it to be conceived as having all stakeholders take part in decision-making or is it some kind of technique for extracting local knowledge in order to design widely applicable

programs? Ray Jennings [29] remarks though that differences in definitions and methods or approaches to participation notwithstanding, there is certain agreement on what is to be construed as genuine or authentic participation. According to him,

*Participation refers to involvement by local populations in creation, content and conduct of a program or policy designed to change their lives. Participation requires recognition and use of local capacities and avoids the imposition of priorities from the outside. It increases the odds that a program will be on target and its results will more likely be sustainable. Ultimately, [it] is driven by a belief in the importance of entrusting citizens with the responsibility to shape their own future [29].*

This definition raises some issues which require closer examination. To start with, there is the issue relating to the phrase 'designed to change their lives'. This is based largely on the presupposition that people's lives need to be changed. It has to be remarked though that, if the people decided to change their lives on their own, there may be no need to speak about participation in the sense it is spoken of by Jennings. If however, the initiative to change the people's lives comes from an outsider, one wonders where the justification for such an intervention lies indeed. This is an issue more complex than the scope of this work. Nonetheless, Jennings has provided us with a working definition of participation. More importantly, it opens up the aspect of participation that presupposes a belief in the importance of leaving citizens with the responsibility of charting the course of their own future. This is crucial about participation.

Understood in this way, participation may no longer be misconstrued as: consultation—referring to people for information and their opinions; involvement—having people included as a necessary part of some exercise or engagement; citizenship having full membership of community, which involves the civil right to freedom; and community action—any activity undertaken by a community to effect change [30]. According to Frances Cleaver [31, 32], it is conceptually underpinned as an end other than a means. As an end it is about empowerment. Hence, a process that enhances the capacity of a group of people to improve or change their own lives.

Furthermore, Cleaver [31] discloses that discourses of development concerned with visible and manageable manifestations of collective action are often clothed in the rhetoric of empowerment. But, there is also another dimension to empowerment, which is termed radical empowerment. This is associated with individual and collective actions geared towards the transformation of structures of subordination, through radical changes in law, property rights, and the institutions of society. It implies that development practitioners will work with poor people to engage in active struggle for change. She also observes that we need to conceptualize participation in as much broad way as to facilitate the analyses of the connection between intervention, participation and empowerment. People's lives differ from project. Due to the linkages of people's livelihood, an impact on one area is likely to be felt in other areas. There is the potentiality of unintended consequences arising from intended interventions.

It means that when interventions are taken away from narrow approaches, there seems to be some recognition of the interlinkages of livelihoods. This gives social capital a prominent position in CSR. Unfortunately, CSR has barely acknowledged this interlinkages of livelihood and has always played down on participation as radical empowerment and leaving the responsibility of charting the course of their own future in people's hands. The backlash of CSR in Obufia is a pointer to the dangers

*Responding Creatively to Faulty Corporate Social Responsibility Practices: The Case of Nigeria's… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106249*

associated with playing down on participation as radical empowerment. Why indeed is this the case? Why are CSR approaches in the oil extraction zones so deficient in this aspect? To find the answer to this question, we must appeal to the global production network of oil where the forces behind the lack of local participation can be identified.
