The plasticity of participation: evidence from a participatory governance experiment

Under the “People’s Campaign for Decentralised Planning,” initiated by the government of the Indian state of Kerala in 1996, significant planning and budgetary functions that had previously been controlled by state-level ministries, were devolved to the lowest tier of government— municipalities in urban areas, and gram panchayats (village councils) in rural areas. A key element of the campaign was the requirement that every gram panchayat organize open village assemblies—called Gram Sabhas—twice a year through which citizens could participate in formulating planning priorities, goals and projects. Using data from the first two years of the campaign, on the levels and composition of participation in the Gram Sabhas in all of Kerala’s 990 gram panchayats we empirically assess the explanatory power of the dominant existing paradigms of participation—social capital, rational choice, and social-historical. The basic patterns we document, as well as our more detailed analyses of the impact that a range of spatial, socioeconomic and political factors had on the levels and social depth of participation, provide broad support for a dynamic and contingent view of participation, a perspective that recognizes the “plasticity of participation.” ∗ We are indebted to the Kerala State Planning Board and in particular to Board member T.V. Thomas Isaac for providing us access to the data we use in this paper. During research trips in 1996, 1999, 2001 and 2002, in addition to obtaining these data, we conducted multiple interviews with key officials, civil society activists and Planning Board Members, visited several gram panchayats and attended numerous Gram Sabhas. Funding for these trips was provided by the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy at Columbia University. With funding from the Ford Foundation in India, and in collaboration with the Centre for Development Studies in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, we are currently conducting an intensive survey of 85 randomly selected panchayats, including over 900 interviews with key respondents. For details see Chaudhuri, Heller and Mukherjee (2001).