International workshop Venice - March 11-12 1999 Concepts and Paradigms of Urban Management in the Context of Developing Countries
	[ Workshop home page] [ Index of papers]

Françoise Navez-Bouchanine (sociologue)

"New trends in project identification projects? "population participation", "people empowerment", "bottom/up projects": some considerations from the moroccan case.

My contribution is a critical review, from a social scientist point of view, of some projects that the moroccan government, international cooperation and/or civil society have been developing [1] during the last fifteen years in order to initiate " sustainable ", " socially-appropriated " or endogenous development . Despite programs based on population participation or people empowerment, things seem to stand at a very weak and very formal level [2].

Different kind of explanations may be suggested:

• a pessimist one : population participation or people empowerment , whatever the degree of " sincerity " of the intellectuals who initiated the programs based on these concepts, they are just a " soft " translation of neo-liberalism new trends and are ready to get rid of government intervention in infrastructure and services, making people pay for what they get or consume. No reason, then, to look for " sustainable development " which seems to be a sheer " alibi "…

• a quiet hard, but not desperate, one : democracy, social justice or equity, whatever the issue they refer to (gender, rural-urban gap, intra-urban gap…) are implemented, from the international or NGO offices to the government, in a political, organisational and managing " package ". These " packaegs " are just formally imported and they didn't really changed the true process of defining what should be done, and how, at a local level. Most of the decisions are still taken on behalf of the concerned population constantly neglecting their actual socio-cultural practices, and the on-going social dynamics, even when participative or bottom/up methodological principles are claimed

• some quite optimist ones:
  • Intermediate levels in the administration offer a passive but strong resistance to any attempt by central administrations towards more flexible rules and show a deep " respect " of the norms, a strong belief in " what should happen " as against what really happens in the real world! This hinders any effort to improve the decision making process.
  • Deep " misunderstandings " between people expectations and central or local authorities responses arise, not necessarily about the aims but about the way their implementation.The right question is to find ways of fulfilling the expectations in a technically feasible, economically realistic and socially acceptable way.
  • All these are new concepts which have not yet been correctly translated into methods and technics locally appropriated. Concepts are understood and shared, but applications are still to be found.

Some suggestions for the future:

1. To reduce the " universal " and " ready made " policies and programs and concentrate on the practical and efficient ways to introduce more productive methods of bottom-up projects. This should be based on a new kind of project identification which would ensure the right place to local priorities. This also means that communication and awareness, which very often are a simple tool to impose the " good " messages from the top to the bottom, should take the second place, after population priorities and social understandings.
2. This means probably a better and earlier use of social approach in a real identification process. Social approach should be based on a real participatory analysis, integrating mutual understandings, constant and permanent feed-back and negotiation between population, technicians, politicians and social scientists. It's a in-built process where no one should know, at the beginning, what will be decided, at last. Thus, a kind of " learning " process. Not an " ex-pert " position, creating no " inner " culture or knowledge, but a " taking-part " approach, where the challenge is to identify more progressive and flexible objectives and projects, rather than trying to impose final, ideal and definite objectives.
3. To re-consider the participatory methods as a useful indirect teaching tool for changing the government's attitudes. Sharing participative action seems to be an appropriate way to lead central as well as local government officials, or at least some of them, as well as middle-class and intellectuals working in NGO's, to increase their capacity to understand different needs, way of lives, values and to be more critical about their own practices.
4. It is also necessary to find new ways for encouraging " evaluative culture ", inside and outside projects. I don't mean very sophisticated procedures : they have failed or have been " misused " by the past. I refer to simple methods and techniques which should be widely communicated and discussed at local and national levels. " Best practices " may be interesting, if they are taken not only for what they produced, but mainly for the way they used to produce it. For the same reaons, " bad practices " brief analysis can be also an excellent pedagogic tool !
5. To define appropriate procedures for transferring responsabilities, as well as competences and abilities, including financial ones, to local levels and communities. Some interesting experiences are under way, and a few of them have already succeed. Their " micro " dimension leads very often to the conclusion that they are not replicable, and not able to give satisfactory answers to global problems. This should be reconsidered and some detailed financial evaluations should be carried out in order to compare the ratio investments/results in large-scale and small-scale-projects.
6. To avoid an increasing, and yet really unsuccesfull, tendancy to " instrumentalize " social practices, and among them, collective ones, and to reduce them to their explicit and present " forms ", ignoring the conditions, processes and significations undershaping them. This turned to lead to new constraints for people, particularly when they become conditionnal for further help and cooperation.

NOTES

1. Mainly orientated to spreading better access to urban infrastructure, habitat and services.

2. This will be developed after personal concern (as a consultant or NGO'S member) in ex post evaluations studies in upgrading projects, and casually in their identification process where " target population " observation ( social, economical, cultural practices, perceptions and dynamics among populations) have been predominant.