Journal of Social Development in Africa (1987), 2, 5-15 
Popular Participation, 
Statism and Development 
JAMES MIDGLEY + 
ABSTRACT 
This paper takes a critical look at the popular issue of participation, and 
suggests that a major weakness in the literature of participation is its failure to 
deal with the realities of statism in the modern world, and particularly the 
Third World. The paper argues that while many proponents of participation 
theory claim a commitment to socialism and marxism their views in fact derive 
from a blend of individualism, populism and anarchism, ideologies which 
incorporate a basic distrust of the state. In effect the impact of this is that 
participation theory has an implied distrust of state sponsored development. 
This distrust, the paper argues, is not necessarily a fair reflection of the current 
state of affairs in the Third World. 
Introduction 
The idea of participation is exceedingly popular in development circles today. 
It pervades the academic literature and is perennially discussed at international 
meetings and conferences. Notions of participation characterise the programmes 
of the large international development agencies and the activities of nongovernment 
organisations and religious groups. A substantial amount of aid 
for the Third World is today directly linked to small scale projects which seek 
to maximise the involvement of ordinary people in development. Many 
governments have officially endorsed these ideals and it is not uncommon to 
find references to participation in development plans and other public 
documents. Although the concept is not a new one, it has been remarkably 
resilient retaining its vitality in spite of a tendency towards faddishness within 
development studies. While the subject's archives are litered with defunct 
terms, phrases and slogans, the rhetoric of participation has survived the 
vagaries of its fashions. 
+ Dean, School of Social Work, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 
70803, USA.
6 James Midgley 
The continued popularity of the concept may be attributed not only to its 
affective appeal but to a surprising lack of critical debate about its precise 
meaning, theoretical consistency and practical value. Unlike most other ideas 
in development studies, popular participation has not been subjected to careful 
academic scrutiny and many questionable and controversial issues in participation 
theory have not been properly debated. As an ideal, participation is 
shielded from the profanities of intellectual scepticism. Few academics would 
quarrel with the view that development policies should be more sensitive to the 
needs of ordinary people or that opportunities for peoples' involvement in 
development projects should be enhanced or that ordinary people should share 
in the benefits that flow from development effort. To criticise these ideals 
would appear to be most ungenerous. But apparently straightforward beliefs 
often raise complex issues which require closer academic examination. Also, 
it is not only the function but the duty of academic enquiry to analyse ideas, 
concepts and theories in the cold light of objective criticism. And a critical 
examination of this kind serves both analytical and normative purposes. 
Concepts and theories that cannot withstand the rigours of intellectual scrutiny 
are of little value. Similarly, refinements that flow from these academic 
processes have greater value in both the worlds of ideas and practical activity. 
A major weakness of the literature of participation is its failure to deal adequately 
with the realities of statism in the modern world. The role of the state 
has expanded enormously during this century and today state intervention in 
all spheres of contemporary life has reached a level that is historically 
unprecedented .The state is the primary initiater and promoter of development 
effort in most Third World nations and in the field of social development, state 
provisions have grown rapidly. Accounts of popular participation should deal 
with these realities and incorporate them into a comprehensive approach 
that embraces the dispirate elements of statist and participatory development. 
However, most proponents of popular participation have ignored the issue 
of state-people relations in development. Others have dealt only superficially 
with the question appearing to dismiss the utility of state sponsored development. 
Some explicate a determined antipathy to state involvement that reflects 
the inherent dislike of establishments and bureaucracies in populist thought. 
These writers not only distrust the state but believe that it embodies elements 
that are antithetical to the attainment of participatory ideals. In these 
formulations, populist themes are transcended to produce an anarchist critique 
that dismisses the possibility of symbiosis.
Popular Participation, Statism and Development 7 
Antipathies to statism in participatory theory 
Contemporary popular participation theory derives from a number of antecedents 
which embody wider ideological conceptions about the proper 
organisation of human relationships and the correct ordering of society. Its 
immediate precursor in the developing world was the community development 
movement which originated in colonial times and resulted, as Brokensha and 
Hodge (1969) have shown, in the creation of large national community 
development programmes in many developing countries. These centralised 
and bureaucratically administered schemes were subjected to increasing 
criticism over the years as it was realised that their administration consumed a 
good proportion of scarce resources, failed to deliver tangible benefits to the 
mass of the population and did little to involve ordinary people in decision 
making. There was a gradual disenchantment with the political implications of 
these programmes as well. Reflecting ideological preferences for stability, selfhelp, 
consensus and self-reliance, they minimised notions of peoples' empowerment 
and the redistribution of access to resources. As disillusionment with 
community development increased, a new conception of popular participation 
evolved gaining widespread support and subverting established community 
development conventions. 
The leading proponents of the new community participation approach are 
officials at international development organisations such as the World Health 
Organisation and UNICEF, administrators of non-governmental agencies 
and academics with an interest in social programmes, rural development and 
small scale development projects. Although some of them, and particularly 
those working in the international agencies, have a civil service background, 
the majority have little feel for public administration. In formulating the new 
popular participation approach, they drew on their knowledge of small scale, 
localised and informal activities rather than the traditions of centralised policy 
making and large scale bureaucratic management. Many were initiated into 
the world of development as volunteers serving as teachers or community 
workers for North American and European volunteer organisations. Their 
formative impressions of folk life and community effort had a lasting effect, 
fashioning the way they conceived of development problems and possible 
solutions. It is also engendered an antithetical attitude to state involvement in 
development. 
Ideological negations 
In addition to the proclivities deriving from their personal backgrounds,
8 James Midgley 
proponents of popular participation theory have been influenced by various 
ideological beliefs. Some claim a commitment to socialism and although their 
writings make frequent references to socialist and even Marxist concepts, their 
views do not in fact derive from socialism but from a curious blend of 
individualism, populism and anarchism. These more complex and obscure 
sources of inspiration exert a subtle influence and it is not surprising that few 
proponents of community participation are aware of the impact of these 
ideologies on their views. 
Individualist ideas associated with classical liberalism are revealed in those 
elements of participation theory that call for autonomous control by individuals 
over all matters that affect their lives and the democratic involvement of all 
citizens in the decision making process. The commitment to liberal democracy 
and especially its localised versions of neighbourhood democracy may be 
directly attributed to individualist thought. 
Liberal notions of individual responsibility are also manifested in the 
popular participation literature but they are usually mixed with populist ideas 
that stress local cooperation in the attainment of self-reliance. Although 
populism is a complex ideological system which is manifested in a bewildering 
variety of movements, its essential tenets are clear and may be readily 
identified with popular participation thinking. Wile's (1969:166) widely 
quoted definition of populism as "the belief that virtue resides in the simple 
people who are in the overwhelming majority and in their collective traditions " 
is almost synonymous with the sentiments expressed by popular participation 
theorists. Like participation, populism appeals to mass sentiment and claims 
to represent the interests of ordinary people protecting them against hostile 
political forces and unfavourable economic conditions. 
Anarchist ideas have also influenced popular participation but in a less 
overt and systematic way. Communalism and localism are tenets of anarchist 
thinking that are also found in participatory thinking. In anarchism, the ideal 
form of social organisation is the small productive commune operated on 
communitarian and egalitarian principles. When the proponents of popular 
participation extol the virtues of small communities and their community lifestyles, 
and call for the strengthening of local participatory institutions that will 
mobilise local involvement, they reveal their debt to anarchist thought. 
All three ideologies are hostile to statism. By denigrating the role of the state 
in development, they reveal clear ideological differences from socialism. 
While socialism requires the extension of the collective ownership of the 
means of production, individualism, populism and anarchism reject extensive
Popular Participation, Statism and Development 9 
state involvement in social and economic affairs. Socialists are, of course, 
opposed to the capitalist state and, like Marxists, they believe that the 
capitalist state represents sectional class interests. But,unlike the proponents 
of popular participation, socialists regard the state as central to their political 
agenda. Even in Marxism,the state plays a critical role in the transformation 
of society into communism. 
Individualist liberalism rejects state 'interference' on the ground that it 
diminishes individual freedom and self-reliance. Liberals argue in particular 
that the extention of state influence is harmful to democratic ideals. As the 
state bloats itself with power, individual rights and freedoms are suppressed. 
Populism too has a dislike and distrust of the state. Although populist 
leaders such as Peron and Long successfully appropriated the institutions of 
the state to implement their programmes, populism remains essentially hostile 
to the state establishment. Stewart (1969) argued that populist movements 
often arise in conditions of social and economic adversity and widespread 
cynicism about the political process. Populism flourishes in this climate to 
champion the interests of the long suffering masses and challenge the wicked 
political establishment with its inflexible and arrogant bureacracy, indifferent 
and corrupt politicians and manipulative pressure groups representative of 
oligarchic interests. 
Anarchism is, of course, blatently anti^tatist. Indeed, an overt hostility to 
the state is a primary distinguishing feature of anarchist thinking. Anarchists 
believe that the institutionalisation of power in the organs of the state 
(irrespective of its ideological complexion) is an evil which freedom loving 
humans must resist. To realise deomocracy, they must act collectively to 
create an egalitarian and communitarian society that has no need of the state. 
Objections to state sponsored development 
The impact of these ideologies may be discerned in much of the popular 
participation literature. Although few writers make a systematic case against 
state sponsored development, they frequently allude to the negative consequences 
of state involvement stressing the need for alternative approaches. 
Anti-statist sentiments in popular participation are expressed in the form of 
three major arguments which claim respectively that the state is inefficient, 
that it is paternalistic and that it is oppressive. All three are inimical to the 
ideals of development
10 James Midgley 
Many argue that state sponsored development is highly inefficient. This is 
manifested in the allegedly overstaffed, poorly organised and costly bureaucracies 
that administer development programmes in Third World countries. 
Advocates of popular participation are not only critical of the inefficiency of 
the state but claim that participatory development offers a far more effective 
alternative. For example, White (1982) argues with reference to medical care 
that state social development programmes are far more costly than those which 
are provided by local people themselves. Also, he argues that village health 
workers are not only cheaper but much more efficient than government doctors 
because they "understand the environment and are typically well motivated to 
work within it." Hollnsteiner (1982) makes a similar point in her account of 
participation in primary health care. State sponsored health programmes are 
usually provided on a piecemeal basis and are poorly coordinated with the 
result that local people do not benefit properly. Popular control of health 
services would deal with these problems reducing the wastage that results from 
a lack of cross-sectoral integration. 
State services are also criticised for their paternalism. Many proponents of 
popular participation claim that the external imposition of programmes fosters 
an unhealthy dependency on the state. Bugnicourt (1982) argues that the 
'mobilisation' of people for development projects by government officials is 
counterproductive because it in fact demobilises the population negating their 
capacity to solve their own problems. De Graaf (1986) is equally critical of a 
top-down' style of development in which metaphorical fishing rods are 
handed down to a passive populace which is exhorted to fend for itself. 
Authentic social development occurs when ordinary people find answers to 
their own problems through taking direct political control over their own 
affairs. The technical expert, who features prominently in the demonology of 
participation, is often seen as epitomising the paternalism of the state. 
Hollsnteiner (1977) writes about the 'elite specialist' whose professional 
education engenders an attitude of 'knowing best'. But, by failing to involve the 
ordinary people, these 'developers' impose external solutions and foster 
paternalism; they also frequently make mistakes that are monumentally costly 
and wasteful. 
The view that the state is oppressive and inimical to authentic development 
is inherent in much popular participation thinking. Reference are frequently 
made in the literature to Third World totalitarian regimes that are not only 
disinterested in development but rigorously suppress the efforts of progressive 
elements to bring about meaningful changes. Writing about 'people power' in 
urban settlements in developing countries, Hollnsteiner (1977) argues that 
governments frequently deal brutally with the poor who seek to improve their
Popular Participation, Statism and Development 11 
conditions. Charges of subversion are levied against them, police violence is 
frequently used and many are imprisoned. Other writers have drawn attention 
to the more subtle techniques of cooptation which are employed by the state to 
neutralise progressive movements. Bugnicourt (1982) has written at length 
about pseudo-participatory institutions in Africa that give the appearance of 
authentic involvement but are in fact agents of state manipulation. Both forms 
of state intervention are oppressive and antithetical to the realisation of 
development ideals. 
Because of its inefficiency, paternalism and oppression, the state is not 
regarded by the proponents of popular participation as a viable agent of 
development. Instead, they propose an alternative strategy which devolves the 
responsibility for progress on to ordinary people and empowers them through 
consdentisation to take control of their own destiny. In this scenario, the 
structures of state power whither away, liberating human capacities and 
aspirations. 
The realities and achievements of statism 
It would, of course, be foolish to claim that the criticisms levied against the 
state by the proponents of popular participation are without foundation. The 
international media is perennially filled with reports of the corruption and 
brutality of state power in the modern world. State power has become 
increasingly centralised as single party governments, dictatorships and 
military regimes have multiplied. Amin, Somoza, Pahlavi, Duvalier, Marcos 
and Pinochet are notorious representatives of autocratic tendencies of Third 
World politics. 
The arguments levied against statist forms of development also have 
validity. It is difficult to argue that state sponsored development has always 
been efficient, committed to welfare ideals or sensitive to local needs. Indeed, 
accompanying the trend towards the centralisation of power, bureaucracies 
have expanded rapidly and many have become unwieldy and costly. Development 
planning in many countries has become increasingly esoteric and 
divorced from the realities of mass poverty and deprivation and, in many 
places (particularly in Africa) public sector development programmes have 
stagnated. 
It is important, however, to put these problems into perspective. One of the 
major methodological failures of contemporary social science analysis is the 
tendency towards overgeneralisation. In spite of the complexity and diversity
12 James Midgley 
of political phenomena in the Third World, social scientists have often made 
sweeping generalisations that are based on selective evidence. The evidence 
mustered to support an anti-statist veiwpoint can be countered by an 
alternative argument which is also based on empirical fact but which is much 
more sympathetic to state involvement. 
There is evidence to refute the implication in much popular participation 
writing that Third World governments are uniformly tyrannical. Although 
liberal democracies are hardly commonplace, it is not the case that the 
majority of the developing nations are terrorised by totalitariansim. Participatory 
institutions including parliamentary democracies exist in many Third 
World countries and it should be recognised that the electoral process has 
replaced unpopular governments in the past. It is significant that the dictators 
mentioned earlier have, with one exception, been removed from power. As the 
Tanzanian case reveals, even one party systems have a capacity for 
benevolent populist rule. While few would deny the trend towards centralisation 
in recent times, centralisation is not the same as autocracy; indeed many 
Western democracies are today characterised by a high degree of political 
centralism. 
Negative images of the nature of statist development can also be countered. 
Contrary to the views of popular participation advocates, there is evidence to 
show that Third World governments have brought about significant economic 
and social improvements. Following the collapse of European imperial rule 
during the middle decades of this century, many developing countries have 
experienced a remarkable degree of development which may be attributed 
directly to state involvement. Many economic forecasters have been surprised 
at the high rates of GDP increase and sizeable per capita income increases 
recorded in the developing countries during the post-Second World War 
decades. Assessing the growth potential of some 60 developing countries at the 
beginning of the 1960s, Rosenstein-Rodan (1961) concluded that few, if any, 
would achieve average annual growth rates of more than three percent. Some 
twenty years later, however, Loup (1983) pointed out that just under a third of 
these countries had exceeded this figure. These achievements are largely due 
to state intervention and management of the economy. Indeed, the successes of 
high growth countries such as South Korea and Taiwan can be attributed 
directly to dirigisme. 
There has been a significant expansion of state social services in the Third 
World as well, with concommitant improvements in levels of living. Figures 
released by the United Nations (1979) at the end of the 1970s show that 
budgetary allocations to the social services had increased significantly and that
Popular Participation, Statism and Development 13 
the state's share in social service provision had also increased. Hardiman and 
Midgley (1982) reported that social services have expanded rapidly, particularly 
in the fields of education and health but also (although to a lesser extent) 
in housing. While social security and social work services remain relatively 
underdeveloped, they too have grown (Midgley, 1984a; 1984b). It is, of 
course, difficult to assess the precise impact of these social provisions on levels 
of welfare but there is evidence to show that the expansion of state services in 
developing countries has been accompanied by significant improvements in 
life expectancy, literacy and other indicators of social development. 
Although this alternative account challenges the pervasive anti-statism of 
popular participation theory,it does not suggest that state sponsored development 
has been an unqualified success or that statism offers a Utopian vision of 
progress to the hundreds of millions of people who still live in conditions of 
appalling poverty and deprivation in Third World countries. Vivid images of 
starvation in Africa, of urban squalor in Latin America, of civil strife in the 
Middle East and the persistence of rural deprivation in Asia belie any claims of 
this kind. Rather, it suggests that a more balanced view that recognises the real 
achievements of state sponsored development is required. 
Irrespective of whether or not the proponents of popular participation 
accept these arguments, they cannot escape the realities of statism in the Third 
World. As suggested at the beginning of this article, the modern state today 
intervenes in social and economic affairs to an extent previously unkown. As 
Held (1984:9)put it, "the state appears to be everywhere regulating the conditions 
of our lives from birth registration to death certification." In 
development, the state not only determines policy but is the provider of a great 
variety of services. Of even greater significance to the advocates of popular 
participation is the fact that the state has the power to determine the nature and 
extent of participatory activities and, in many countries, it already does so. In 
view of these realities, it is surprising that so many writers continue to ignore or 
minimise the significance of state involvement in either development or 
popular participation. 
Dealing with the state 
There is an urgent need for the proponents of participatory development to 
deal properly with the realities of statism in the Third World. Instead 
of perpetuating a simplistic antipathy to state involvement, they need to 
recognise the realities as well as the positive consequences of state sponsored 
development. They should also come to grips with the fact that the state is now 
extensively involved in the promotion of participatory programmes.
14 James Midgley 
It is commonly accepted among popular participation advocates that state 
support for participation diminishes participation. Although the paradoxical 
character of this view is seldom acknowledged, it emanates from the 
widespread belief that state involvement in participation results in the 
manipulation of spontaneous action and the co-optation of popular leaders. 
Co-optation and manipulation may also occur as a result of deliberate and cynical 
attempts by the state to neutralise participation or it may occur inadvertently 
through the creation and institutionalisation of formal channels of communicaion 
between the state and citizens. It may also occur because the state has 
created what it believes to be legitimate and adequate channels for participation 
and the expression of democratic views (which are usually operated through 
the ruling political party). In this case, national leaders and party officials 
cannot conceive of the need for alternative participatory mechanisms and they 
will either seek to suppress or subvert these activities. Where participation is 
manipulated by the ruling party through its organised channels, opportunities 
for authentic involvement are minimised and participatory activities are used 
instead for the endorsement of what Bugnicourt (1982: 67) describes as 
"hierarchically transmitted impulses". 
While there is no doubt that manipulation of this kind does occur, a recent 
study of participatory social development schemes (Midgley et al, 1986) 
rejected the idea that state involvement was primarily committed to the 
suppression or manipulation of people's involvement. Instead, state support 
was generally haphazard, sporadic and ad hoc, reflecting the widespread 
tendency towards incrementalist social administration in Third World countries. 
There was evidence of manipulation, but this did not characterise all 
state involvement or preclude harmony in community and state effort. 
This finding calls for the development and consolidation of participatory 
programmes that recognise the legitimacy and benefits of state involvement. 
Since the state is able to mobilise resources ,provide expertise and redistribute 
goods and services in favour of the most needy groups, ways of harmonising 
popular and public effort must be found. There have been some attempts in the 
literature to identify tactics that will achieve this end. United Nations 
publications (1975, 1976, 1981) have been particularly concerned with this 
question. They have urged that local leaders be trained in the techniques of 
bargaining and skilled in the use of methods that will pressurise recalcitrant 
politicians and bureaucrats. They have also urged that more viable forms of 
decentralised administration be established and that opportunities for public 
consultation and the expression of popular opinion be created. Civil servants, 
planners and politicians need to be trained in participatory government and
Popular Participation, Statism and Development 15 
taught to be more sensitive to local needs. Although these proposals will be 
difficult to implement, they offer a prospect of harmonising state and popular 
effort in development. The determined advocacy of these tactics by the 
proponents of popular participation rather than the perpetuation of a nihilistic 
anti -statism might,through the mobilisation of the very considerable resources 
of the state, bring about real improvements in welfare for the Third World's 
impoverished masses. 
References 
Brokensha D and Hodge P (1969) Community Development: An Interpretation, San 
Francisco, Chandler. 
Bugnicourt J (1982) "Popular Participation in Development in Africa" in Assignment 
Children, 59/60, 57 - 77. 
DeGraafM (1986) "Catching Fish or Liberating ManrSocial Development in Zimbabwe" 
in Journal of Social Development in Africa, 1. 7-26. 
Hardiman M and Midgley J (1982) The Social Dimensions of Development, Chichester, 
Wiley. 
Held D (1984) "Central Perspectives on the Modern State " in G. McLennan et al (Eds )The 
Idea of the Modern State, Open University Press, Milton Keynes. 
Hollnsteiner M R (1977) "People Power: Community Participation in the Planning of 
Human Settlements" in Assignment Children, 40, 11-47. 
Hollnsteiner M R (1982) 'The Participatory Imperative in Primary Health Care" in 
Assignment Children, 59/60. 35 - 56. 
Loup J (1983) Can the Third World Survive, John Hopkins, University Press. Baltimore. 
Midgley J (1984a) "Social Work Services in the Third World: Towards the Integration of 
Remedial and Developmental Orientations" in Social Development Issues, 8, 89-104. 
Midgley J (1984b) Social Security, Inequality and the Third World, Wiley, Chichester. 
Midgley J et al (1986) Community Participation, Social Development and the State, 
Methuen, London. 
Rosenstein-Rodan P (1961) "International Aid for Underdeveloped Countries" in Review of 
Economics and Statistics, 63, 107 - 138. 
Stewart A (1969) 'The Social Roots'Mn G. Ionescu and E. Gellner (Eds) Populism; Its 
Meaning and National Characteristics, Macmillan, New York, pp. 180-196. 
United Nations (975) Popular Participation in Decision Making for Development, New 
York. 
United Nations (1976) Community Programmes for Low Income Populations in 
Developing Countries, New York. 
United Nations (1979) Patterns of Government Expenditure on the Social Services, New 
York. 
United Nations (1981) Popular Participation as a Strategy for Promoting Community 
Level Action and National Development. New York. 
White A T "Why Community Participation" in Assignment Children. 59/60. 17-34. 
Wiles P (1969) "ASyndromenotaDoctrine"inG.IonescuandE.Gellner(Eds)Populism: 
Its Meaning and National Characteristics, Macmillan, New York, pp 166-179.