See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357752511
Local Participation in Community- Based Development Projects
in Ghana
Article  in  International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development · January 2022
CITATION READS
1 847
3 authors, including:
Samuel Afotey Anang
University of Energy and Natural Resources
2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Samuel Afotey Anang on 11 January 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development
Volume 13 • Issue 1 
Local Participation in Community-
Based Development Projects in Ghana
Abigail A. Aryeh-Adjei, University of Ghana, Ghana
Samuel Afotey Anang, University of Energy and Natural Resources, Ghana*
Diana Osei-Adusah, Ga West Municipal Assembly, Ghana
ABSTRACT
The﻿study﻿critically﻿analyses﻿how﻿the﻿local﻿people﻿in﻿Ga﻿West﻿municipality﻿perceive﻿local﻿participation﻿
and﻿socio-cultural﻿factors﻿that﻿influence﻿local﻿participation.﻿The﻿study﻿used﻿the﻿mixed﻿method﻿design.﻿
The﻿lottery﻿method﻿of﻿the﻿simple﻿random﻿sampling﻿technique﻿coupled﻿with﻿Neuman﻿and﻿Neuman’s﻿
recommendation﻿on﻿random﻿convenience﻿sampling﻿were﻿used﻿to﻿sample﻿and﻿collect﻿data﻿from﻿187﻿
respondents.﻿The﻿study﻿revealed﻿that﻿local﻿participation﻿provides﻿the﻿local﻿people﻿employment﻿avenues.﻿
It﻿was﻿revealed﻿that﻿developmental﻿projects﻿brought﻿to﻿their﻿communities﻿do﻿not﻿allow﻿the﻿local﻿people﻿
to﻿be﻿involved﻿at﻿the﻿planning﻿and﻿implementation﻿phases.﻿The﻿study﻿further﻿revealed﻿that﻿women﻿
were﻿of﻿the﻿opinion﻿that﻿projects﻿brought﻿to﻿them﻿were﻿not﻿feminine﻿enough﻿and﻿did﻿not﻿build﻿their﻿
capacity.﻿Education,﻿social﻿cohesion,﻿peace,﻿and﻿stability﻿were﻿among﻿some﻿of﻿the﻿sociocultural﻿factors﻿
that﻿influence﻿participation.﻿The﻿study﻿again﻿recommended﻿that﻿every﻿community﻿member﻿should﻿
participate,﻿regardless﻿of﻿their﻿gender,﻿ethnic﻿group,﻿or﻿socio-cultural﻿differences.
KEywoRDS
Community, Community-Based Development Projects, Local Participation, Stakeholder
INTRoDUCTIoN
Local﻿participation﻿is﻿not﻿only﻿believed﻿to﻿be﻿the﻿“panacea”﻿to﻿ensuring﻿improvement,﻿especially﻿
in﻿the﻿context﻿of﻿poverty﻿alleviation﻿(Boakye-Agyei,﻿2009)﻿but﻿also﻿justified﻿as﻿a﻿prerequisite﻿
to,﻿and﻿a﻿catalyst﻿for﻿sustainable﻿socio-economic﻿development﻿and﻿general﻿societal﻿well-being﻿
(Work,﻿2002).﻿A﻿number﻿of﻿authors﻿have﻿categorized﻿participation﻿in﻿development﻿projects﻿into﻿
typologies﻿with﻿lower﻿and﻿higher﻿levels﻿(Chambers,﻿2005;﻿Ahwoi,﻿2007;﻿Ayee,﻿2000a;﻿Ayoade,﻿
2000).﻿In﻿lower﻿levels﻿of﻿participation,﻿the﻿local﻿people﻿contribute﻿labour,﻿time,﻿and﻿resources,﻿
whereas﻿decisions﻿ are﻿ controlled﻿by﻿ the﻿development﻿organization.﻿ In﻿ contrast,﻿ higher﻿ levels﻿
of﻿participation﻿have﻿ the﻿ local﻿people﻿ taking﻿command﻿of﻿ the﻿project,﻿undertaking﻿ their﻿own﻿
analysis﻿ and﻿making﻿ key﻿ decisions.﻿ Chambers﻿ (2005)﻿ analysed﻿ that,﻿ scholars﻿ have﻿ different﻿
opinions﻿regarding﻿higher﻿and﻿lower﻿levels﻿of﻿participation,﻿whiles﻿some﻿think﻿higher﻿level﻿give﻿
more﻿power﻿to﻿local﻿people,﻿others﻿have﻿the﻿opinion﻿that﻿participating﻿in﻿lower﻿levels﻿may﻿also﻿
be﻿an﻿empowering﻿process.
DOI: 10.4018/IJSESD.2022010104 *Corresponding Author
﻿
Copyright﻿©﻿2022,﻿IGI﻿Global.﻿Copying﻿or﻿distributing﻿in﻿print﻿or﻿electronic﻿forms﻿without﻿written﻿permission﻿of﻿IGI﻿Global﻿is﻿prohibited.
﻿
1
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development
Volume 13 • Issue 1
Local﻿participation,﻿particularly﻿by﻿the﻿poor﻿and﻿marginalized,﻿in﻿development﻿initiatives﻿intended﻿
to﻿benefit﻿them﻿have﻿been﻿acknowledged﻿as﻿important﻿in﻿achieving﻿sustainable﻿development﻿(Blackburn﻿
&﻿Holland,﻿2007;﻿Dadzie,﻿2000;﻿Korkor,﻿2014).﻿The﻿assumption﻿is﻿that﻿the﻿local﻿people﻿themselves﻿
better﻿understand﻿their﻿economic﻿and﻿social﻿milieu﻿and﻿probably﻿have﻿insights﻿that﻿can﻿help﻿shape﻿
initiatives﻿intended﻿to﻿benefit﻿them.﻿Ideally,﻿a﻿good﻿local﻿participation﻿program﻿will﻿enable﻿those﻿who﻿
are﻿interested﻿in﻿or﻿affected﻿by﻿a﻿decision﻿to﻿have﻿an﻿opportunity﻿to﻿influence﻿the﻿outcome.﻿However,﻿
Chambers﻿(2005)﻿points﻿out﻿that﻿rural﻿or﻿community﻿development﻿projects﻿have﻿had﻿a﻿high﻿failure﻿
rate﻿because﻿most﻿program﻿officers﻿are﻿external﻿experts﻿and﻿outsiders,﻿who﻿are﻿neither﻿poor﻿nor﻿rural,﻿
and﻿thus﻿do﻿not﻿have﻿a﻿true﻿understanding﻿of﻿the﻿issues﻿at﻿stake.﻿Community﻿members﻿must﻿therefore﻿
be﻿recognized﻿to﻿foster﻿participation﻿for﻿development.
In﻿Ghana﻿for﻿instance,﻿many﻿government﻿projects﻿that﻿have﻿been﻿successfully﻿delivered﻿have﻿
suffered﻿a﻿backlash﻿because﻿of﻿the﻿lack﻿of﻿involvement﻿of﻿local﻿people﻿and﻿neglect﻿of﻿the﻿cultural,﻿
historical﻿and﻿social﻿perspectives﻿of﻿the﻿local﻿people.﻿Some﻿typical﻿examples﻿of﻿Government﻿project﻿
that﻿has﻿suffered﻿this﻿fate﻿are﻿the﻿Ayensu﻿Starch﻿Factory﻿and﻿the﻿Komenda﻿Tomatoes﻿Factory﻿in﻿the﻿
Central﻿Region﻿(Boateng,﻿2012).﻿To﻿Boateng,﻿this﻿as﻿a﻿major﻿concern,﻿has﻿led﻿many﻿stakeholders,﻿
particularly﻿benefactors,﻿to﻿consider﻿better﻿ways﻿of﻿devising﻿structures﻿and/or﻿measures﻿that﻿will﻿ensure﻿
a﻿social﻿content﻿as﻿well﻿as﻿promote﻿a﻿social﻿context﻿within﻿which﻿participation﻿in﻿all﻿community-based﻿
development﻿projects﻿can﻿be﻿enhanced.
Over﻿ the﻿ years,﻿most﻿ studies﻿ conducted﻿ on﻿ the﻿ subject﻿matter﻿ have﻿ largely﻿ focused﻿ on﻿
conceptualizing﻿theories﻿associated﻿with﻿local﻿participation﻿in﻿community﻿development﻿(Boakye-
Adjei,﻿2009;﻿Amon,﻿2014;﻿Fundi,﻿2005)﻿with﻿seldom﻿any﻿recourse﻿to﻿the﻿dynamics﻿and﻿complexities﻿
of﻿environmental﻿context﻿of﻿participation﻿(IJHSS,﻿2016).﻿The﻿problem,﻿therefore,﻿is﻿“What﻿socio-
cultural﻿ factors﻿ influence﻿ community’s﻿ participation﻿ in﻿ community﻿ development﻿ projects?”﻿This﻿
study﻿takes﻿the﻿discussion﻿to﻿the﻿local﻿people﻿in﻿Ga﻿West﻿Municipality﻿and﻿presents﻿an﻿argument﻿
that﻿substantiates﻿a﻿socially﻿constructed﻿position﻿on﻿local﻿participation﻿in﻿development﻿interventions.
The﻿study﻿critically﻿analyses﻿the﻿Ga﻿West﻿communities’﻿perception﻿about﻿local﻿participation﻿and﻿
examines﻿the﻿socio-cultural﻿factors﻿that﻿influence﻿local﻿participation﻿in﻿these﻿communities.
The﻿study﻿seeks﻿to:
1.﻿﻿ Analyse﻿how﻿local﻿people﻿in﻿the﻿Ga﻿West﻿Municipality﻿perceive﻿local﻿participation.
2.﻿﻿ Identify﻿and﻿examine﻿the﻿socio-cultural﻿factors﻿that﻿influence﻿community﻿participation.
Concept of Participation
The﻿term﻿participation﻿is﻿generally﻿operationalized﻿differently﻿depending﻿on﻿the﻿context﻿and﻿field﻿in﻿
which﻿it﻿is﻿studied﻿which﻿makes﻿it﻿uneasy﻿to﻿be﻿conceptualized﻿(Samad,﻿2002).﻿In﻿ancient﻿Greece,﻿
participation﻿was﻿viewed﻿as﻿a﻿matter﻿of﻿voting,﻿holding﻿offices,﻿attending﻿public﻿meetings,﻿paying﻿taxes﻿
and﻿defending﻿the﻿state﻿(Pateman,﻿1999).﻿But﻿in﻿modern﻿times,﻿participation﻿became﻿synonymous﻿with﻿
“sharing”﻿(Kaler,﻿1999).﻿Oakley﻿and﻿Marsden﻿(1984),﻿and﻿Wolfe﻿(1994)﻿put﻿forward﻿that﻿participation﻿
is﻿closely﻿linked﻿with﻿the﻿concept﻿of﻿empowerment.﻿Without﻿empowerment,﻿participation﻿may﻿be﻿
meaningless.﻿People’s﻿participation﻿is﻿the﻿process﻿of﻿empowering﻿the﻿deprived,﻿marginalized﻿and﻿the﻿
excluded﻿(Samad,﻿2002).﻿Cohen﻿and﻿Uphoff﻿(1980)﻿view﻿participation﻿with﻿regard﻿to﻿development﻿
projects﻿as﻿“people’s﻿involvement﻿in﻿decision﻿making﻿processes,﻿in﻿implementing﻿programmes,﻿their﻿
sharing﻿in﻿the﻿benefits﻿of﻿development﻿programmes”﻿and﻿their﻿involvement﻿in﻿efforts﻿to﻿evaluate﻿such﻿
programme.﻿Mohammed﻿(2010)﻿defines﻿participation﻿as﻿the﻿active﻿involvement﻿of﻿the﻿local﻿people﻿in﻿
the﻿planning﻿and﻿implementation﻿of﻿development﻿projects.﻿Mohammed﻿argues﻿that﻿for﻿effective﻿plan﻿
formulation,﻿control﻿of﻿projects﻿and﻿sharing﻿of﻿benefits﻿of﻿development﻿to﻿be﻿realized,﻿participation﻿
is﻿necessary.
Social﻿scientists,﻿development﻿practitioners﻿and﻿development﻿agencies﻿have﻿conceptualized﻿the﻿
term﻿“participation”﻿in﻿their﻿own﻿view﻿and﻿its﻿scope﻿and﻿meaning﻿are﻿still﻿open﻿to﻿debate﻿(Sill,﻿2016).﻿
2
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development
Volume 13 • Issue 1
The﻿USAID﻿(1995)﻿defines﻿participation﻿as:﻿“An﻿active﻿engagement﻿of﻿partners﻿and﻿customers﻿in﻿
sharing﻿ideas,﻿committing﻿time﻿and﻿resources,﻿making﻿decisions﻿and﻿taking﻿action﻿to﻿bring﻿about﻿
a﻿desired﻿development﻿objective”.﻿According﻿ to﻿ the﻿Swedish﻿Development﻿Co-operation﻿Agency﻿
(SIDA),﻿participation﻿is﻿“a﻿basic﻿democratic﻿right﻿that﻿should﻿be﻿promoted﻿in﻿all﻿development﻿projects﻿
considering﻿ the﻿means﻿ of﻿ increasing﻿ efficiency,﻿ effectiveness﻿ and﻿ sustainability﻿ in﻿ development﻿
project”﻿(Rudqvist﻿&﻿Woodford-Berger,﻿1996).﻿In﻿this﻿definition,﻿SIDA﻿laid﻿emphasis﻿on﻿equity﻿and﻿
democracy﻿which﻿are﻿necessary﻿elements﻿in﻿participation.
This﻿ study﻿however﻿ defines﻿ participation﻿ as﻿ active﻿ involvement﻿ of﻿ local﻿ communities,﻿ civil﻿
society﻿and﻿community-based﻿organizations﻿in﻿the﻿planning﻿and﻿implementation﻿process﻿of﻿projects﻿
at﻿the﻿grassroots﻿level.
Local Participation
According﻿ to﻿Karfui﻿ (2014),﻿ governments,﻿ development﻿ institutions,﻿ and﻿Non-Government﻿
Organizations﻿(NGOs)﻿deliver﻿a﻿range﻿of﻿services﻿towards﻿poverty﻿alleviation﻿and﻿awareness﻿creation﻿
via﻿community﻿development﻿projects﻿hence﻿it﻿is﻿imperative﻿to﻿employ﻿the﻿best﻿available﻿practices﻿in﻿
local﻿and﻿stakeholder﻿participation.﻿One﻿justification﻿for﻿local﻿participation﻿is﻿that﻿it﻿results﻿in﻿a﻿strong﻿
sense﻿of﻿ownership﻿over﻿the﻿intervention﻿programme﻿to﻿be﻿implemented﻿(Reed,﻿2008).﻿Boakye-Agyei﻿
(2009)﻿adds﻿that﻿local﻿participation﻿can﻿be﻿used﻿to﻿achieve﻿a﻿project’s﻿material﻿benefits﻿or﻿can﻿facilitate﻿
the﻿social﻿development﻿processes﻿of﻿the﻿people﻿toward﻿empowerment﻿and﻿sustained﻿engagement﻿in﻿
project﻿activities.﻿For﻿example,﻿in﻿Tanzania,﻿community﻿members﻿of﻿Misasa﻿perceived﻿the﻿community’s﻿
water﻿project﻿as﻿ the﻿government’s﻿property﻿and﻿hence﻿ local﻿participation﻿and﻿ownership﻿ through﻿
cost﻿sharing﻿and﻿management﻿was﻿absent﻿which﻿consequently﻿ledto﻿the﻿failure﻿of﻿the﻿project.﻿This﻿
attitude﻿affected﻿the﻿construction,﻿operation﻿and﻿maintenance﻿of﻿the﻿water﻿schemes﻿as﻿well﻿as﻿safety﻿of﻿
project﻿properties﻿due﻿to﻿theft.﻿Karfui﻿(2014)﻿had﻿argued﻿that﻿such﻿perception﻿and﻿attitude﻿are﻿usually﻿
developed﻿in﻿the﻿community﻿members﻿when﻿they﻿are﻿made﻿passive﻿to﻿the﻿project﻿designed﻿for﻿them.
Contrary﻿to﻿a﻿total﻿neglect﻿of﻿ownership,﻿Karl﻿(2015)﻿had﻿posited﻿that﻿a﻿section﻿of﻿the﻿community﻿
perceives﻿that﻿participation﻿in﻿developmental﻿projects﻿is﻿the﻿responsibility﻿of﻿a﻿selected﻿few;﻿usually﻿
the﻿chief﻿and﻿other﻿kinsmen﻿and﻿the﻿assemblyman/woman.﻿Members﻿of﻿the﻿community﻿acknowledge﻿
these﻿selected﻿few﻿as﻿community﻿leaders﻿or﻿representatives﻿of﻿the﻿people﻿and﻿so﻿they﻿have﻿the﻿full﻿
capacity﻿to﻿make﻿meaningful﻿inputs﻿in﻿any﻿discussion﻿on﻿their﻿behalf﻿(Karl,﻿2015;﻿Karfui,﻿2014).﻿The﻿
sense﻿of﻿unity﻿which﻿is﻿usually﻿defined﻿by﻿the﻿feeling﻿of﻿cooperation,﻿commitment﻿to﻿the﻿group’s﻿
welfare,﻿of﻿willingness﻿to﻿communicate﻿openly,﻿and﻿of﻿responsibility﻿to﻿and﻿for﻿others﻿as﻿well﻿as﻿to﻿
one’s﻿self﻿exist.﻿Hence,﻿community﻿leaders﻿who﻿are﻿appointed﻿by﻿the﻿people﻿to﻿represent﻿them﻿are﻿
responsible﻿for﻿seeing﻿to﻿the﻿success﻿of﻿any﻿project﻿designed﻿for﻿the﻿people,﻿depending﻿on﻿the﻿needs﻿of﻿
the﻿community,﻿and﻿the﻿leader’s﻿own﻿feeling﻿(Asante,﻿2015).﻿The﻿onus﻿of﻿planning,﻿operationalizing,﻿
safeguarding﻿and﻿maintaining﻿such﻿projects,﻿therefore,﻿becomes﻿the﻿sole﻿prerogative﻿of﻿the﻿community﻿
leaders﻿and﻿not﻿the﻿majority﻿(citizenry)﻿(Brodie,﻿Cowling﻿&﻿Nissen,﻿2009).
Approaches to Participation
The﻿term﻿“participation”﻿has﻿many﻿perspectives﻿from﻿which﻿meaning﻿is﻿derived;﻿the﻿development﻿
agency﻿school﻿of﻿thought,﻿the﻿political﻿school﻿of﻿thought﻿and﻿the﻿capabilities﻿school﻿of﻿thought.
The﻿development﻿agency﻿school﻿of﻿thought﻿views﻿participation﻿as﻿one﻿that﻿brings﻿about﻿building﻿
partnerships﻿and﻿ownership﻿from﻿the﻿bottom﻿to﻿the﻿top﻿and﻿primarily﻿involves﻿making﻿policies﻿more﻿
sensitive﻿to﻿the﻿poor﻿(Work,﻿2002;﻿World﻿Bank,﻿2000).﻿To﻿the﻿development﻿agency﻿school﻿of﻿thought,﻿
although﻿the﻿poor﻿are﻿more﻿difficult﻿to﻿reach,﻿their﻿opposition﻿can﻿encumber﻿the﻿accomplishments﻿of﻿
development﻿projects.﻿Supporting﻿the﻿development﻿agency﻿school﻿of﻿thought,﻿Tandon﻿and﻿Cordeiro﻿
(1998)﻿state﻿that,﻿participation﻿is﻿exactly﻿the﻿process﻿through﻿which﻿the﻿most﻿affected﻿influence﻿and﻿
share﻿control﻿of﻿their﻿development﻿initiatives.
The﻿political﻿school﻿of﻿thought﻿stretches﻿participation﻿beyond﻿the﻿project﻿framework﻿(Blackburn﻿
&﻿Holland,﻿2007;﻿Thompson,﻿2005)﻿to﻿include﻿influencing﻿national﻿policymakers﻿in﻿the﻿planning﻿
3
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development
Volume 13 • Issue 1
and﻿implementation﻿of﻿large-scale﻿government﻿programs.﻿In﻿this﻿regard,﻿the﻿political﻿school﻿argues﻿
that﻿participation﻿is﻿a﻿way﻿to﻿facilitate﻿political﻿change﻿in﻿favour﻿of﻿the﻿dispossessed﻿(Blackburn﻿&﻿
Holland,﻿2007);﻿and﻿thus,﻿underscores﻿the﻿direct﻿community﻿involvement﻿in﻿the﻿decision-making﻿
process﻿on﻿the﻿socio-economic﻿development﻿and﻿the﻿general﻿well-being﻿of﻿the﻿community.﻿This,﻿they﻿
believe﻿makes﻿development﻿programs﻿better﻿understood,﻿accepted,﻿supported,﻿valued﻿and﻿sustained.
The﻿capabilities﻿school﻿of﻿thought﻿categorizes﻿participation﻿as﻿a﻿process﻿of﻿strengthening﻿the﻿
capabilities﻿of﻿people﻿to﻿control﻿their﻿own﻿development.﻿In﻿this﻿way,﻿participation﻿of﻿beneficiaries﻿
provides﻿a﻿training﻿ground﻿for,﻿and﻿helps﻿to﻿build,﻿a﻿pool﻿of﻿enlightened﻿participatory﻿citizenry﻿(Nelson﻿
&﻿Wright,﻿2005;﻿World﻿Bank,﻿2002).﻿This﻿ school﻿of﻿ thought﻿ suggests﻿ further﻿ that﻿ strengthening﻿
stakeholders’﻿human,﻿economic,﻿social﻿and﻿cultural﻿capabilities﻿is﻿necessary﻿to﻿help﻿them﻿control﻿
their﻿own﻿development﻿in﻿terms﻿of﻿participation﻿(World﻿Bank,﻿2002).
These﻿schools﻿of﻿thought﻿propose﻿and﻿integrate﻿some﻿important﻿elements﻿in﻿participation﻿for﻿
development;﻿nonetheless,﻿not﻿much﻿is﻿said﻿on﻿how﻿to﻿leverage﻿on﻿the﻿historical﻿and﻿socio-cultural﻿
perceptions﻿and﻿experiences﻿of﻿the﻿communities﻿to﻿enhance﻿participation﻿in﻿development﻿projects.
Socio-Cultural Factors That Influence Participation
According﻿to﻿Verba,﻿Schlozman﻿and﻿Brady﻿(1995),﻿the﻿engagement﻿of﻿individuals﻿and﻿communities﻿
in﻿decisions﻿about﻿the﻿things﻿that﻿affect﻿their﻿lives﻿help﻿to﻿ensure﻿successful﻿implementation﻿of﻿the﻿
project﻿since﻿the﻿likes﻿and﻿dislikes,﻿beliefs﻿and﻿taboos﻿are﻿made﻿known﻿to﻿all﻿stakeholders.﻿To﻿these﻿
researchers,﻿culture﻿offers﻿breadth﻿of﻿activities﻿from﻿which﻿individuals﻿choose,﻿create﻿and﻿define﻿the﻿
resources﻿they﻿need﻿to﻿pursue.﻿In﻿particular,﻿Verba﻿et﻿al.,﻿(1995)﻿argue﻿that﻿some﻿cultures﻿segregate﻿
women﻿by﻿not﻿allowing﻿them﻿to﻿mingle﻿with﻿men﻿who﻿are﻿not﻿their﻿husbands﻿or﻿relatives.﻿In﻿addition,﻿
there﻿are﻿certain﻿beliefs﻿that﻿perceive﻿young﻿adults﻿as﻿inferior﻿to﻿old﻿adults.﻿With﻿such﻿a﻿belief,﻿Verba﻿
et﻿al.,﻿(1995)﻿argue﻿that﻿this﻿may﻿hinder﻿the﻿young﻿adult’s﻿participation﻿in﻿community﻿work﻿especially﻿
where﻿the﻿implementation﻿agency﻿is﻿filled﻿with﻿“older﻿adults”.
Limited﻿community﻿participation﻿in﻿the﻿project﻿implementation﻿and﻿management﻿decreases﻿the﻿
projects’﻿chances﻿of﻿sustainability﻿(Rahmato,﻿1991);﻿as﻿the﻿project﻿performs﻿poorly﻿and﻿eventually﻿fail﻿
because﻿the﻿socio-cultural﻿factors﻿that﻿influence﻿participation﻿were﻿not﻿looked﻿at.﻿Local﻿participation﻿
in﻿community﻿development﻿projects﻿are﻿usually﻿limited﻿and﻿in﻿the﻿form﻿of﻿labour﻿investment﻿and﻿not﻿
real﻿decision-making﻿by﻿the﻿society.﻿Beneficiary﻿communities﻿are﻿only﻿informed﻿after﻿plans﻿have﻿been﻿
made﻿through﻿formal﻿meetings﻿where﻿the﻿officers﻿justify﻿their﻿plans﻿with﻿little﻿room﻿for﻿modification﻿
(Community﻿Development﻿Society,﻿2012).
Burns﻿and﻿Taylor﻿(2000)﻿state﻿that,﻿the﻿sponsoring﻿agency﻿should﻿be﻿working﻿with﻿and﻿not﻿for﻿
the﻿people.﻿Project﻿donors/sponsors﻿should﻿recognize﻿the﻿central﻿role﻿of﻿communities﻿in﻿the﻿project﻿
cycle﻿and﻿thus﻿take﻿into﻿consideration﻿their﻿cultural﻿beliefs﻿in﻿order﻿to﻿ensure﻿beneficiary﻿ownership﻿
and﻿also﻿to﻿instil﻿virtues﻿of﻿accountability,﻿transparency﻿and﻿sustainability﻿among﻿societal﻿members.﻿
Members﻿of﻿the﻿society﻿will﻿participate﻿and﻿contribute﻿significantly﻿to﻿something﻿they﻿feel﻿part﻿of,﻿
identify﻿with﻿(culturally),﻿and﻿correlate﻿with﻿their﻿efforts.﻿Engaging﻿individuals﻿and﻿communities﻿
in﻿decisions﻿about﻿things﻿that﻿affect﻿their﻿lives﻿helps﻿to﻿ensure﻿the﻿successful﻿implementation﻿of﻿the﻿
project﻿as﻿their﻿own.﻿Their﻿likes﻿and﻿dislikes,﻿beliefs﻿and﻿taboos﻿are﻿brought﻿to﻿bear﻿(Burns﻿&﻿Taylor,﻿
2000).﻿However,﻿sometimes﻿people﻿do﻿not﻿want﻿to﻿be﻿involved﻿in﻿decision﻿making﻿for﻿development﻿
projects﻿mainly﻿not﻿because﻿they﻿do﻿not﻿want﻿to,﻿but﻿because﻿the﻿stage﻿of﻿involvement﻿they﻿are﻿made﻿
to﻿contribute﻿to﻿or﻿the﻿location﻿of﻿the﻿development﻿project﻿puts﻿them﻿off.
Participation﻿is﻿a﻿basic﻿human﻿right﻿of﻿every﻿citizen﻿that﻿promotes﻿many﻿other﻿rights.﻿It﻿is﻿enshrined﻿
in﻿article﻿27(1)﻿of﻿the﻿Universal﻿Declaration﻿of﻿Human﻿Rights﻿that﻿“everyone﻿has﻿the﻿right﻿to﻿freely﻿
participate﻿in﻿the﻿cultural﻿life﻿of﻿the﻿society,﻿to﻿enjoy﻿the﻿arts﻿and﻿share﻿in﻿scientific﻿advancement﻿
and﻿its﻿benefits”.﻿The﻿concept﻿of﻿people’s﻿participation﻿has﻿lately﻿been﻿gaining﻿momentum﻿due﻿to﻿the﻿
introduction﻿of﻿gender﻿empowerment﻿rights﻿(Rural﻿Communities﻿Impacting﻿Policy﻿Document,﻿2011).﻿
The﻿Manila﻿Declaration﻿(1989)﻿in﻿Theron﻿(2005)﻿is﻿another﻿policy﻿document﻿which﻿guides﻿community﻿
participation.﻿As﻿stated﻿in﻿the﻿Manila﻿Declaration﻿(1989),﻿it﻿provides﻿a﻿people-centered﻿development﻿
4
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development
Volume 13 • Issue 1
package﻿that﻿seeks﻿to﻿return﻿control﻿over﻿resources﻿to﻿the﻿people﻿and﻿their﻿communities﻿to﻿be﻿used﻿in﻿
meeting﻿their﻿own﻿needs.﻿It﻿further﻿calls﻿for﻿active﻿mutual﻿self-help﻿among﻿people,﻿working﻿together﻿
in﻿their﻿common﻿struggle﻿to﻿deal﻿with﻿their﻿common﻿problems﻿in﻿their﻿society.
However,﻿people﻿often﻿decide﻿to﻿act﻿and﻿reflect﻿on﻿their﻿actions﻿as﻿conscious﻿subjects﻿of﻿a﻿greater﻿
group﻿of﻿a﻿society.﻿The﻿common﻿belief﻿is﻿that﻿involving﻿citizens﻿in﻿rural﻿programmes﻿and﻿empowering﻿
them﻿becomes﻿ a﻿ potential﻿ to﻿ boost﻿ their﻿ livelihoods﻿ and﻿ foster﻿ development﻿ in﻿ their﻿ community﻿
(Kakumba﻿&﻿Nsingo,﻿2016).﻿Unfortunately,﻿such﻿seemingly﻿involvement﻿often﻿facilitates﻿inequalities﻿
through﻿democracy﻿to﻿benefit﻿a﻿selected﻿few﻿in﻿the﻿society.
African﻿Development﻿Bank﻿(ADB)﻿(2013)﻿indicates﻿that﻿offering﻿society﻿more﻿choice﻿to﻿partake﻿
actively﻿in﻿their﻿developmental﻿needs﻿would﻿stimulate﻿competition﻿which﻿might﻿end﻿up﻿becoming﻿a﻿
mixed﻿blessing﻿to﻿the﻿community.﻿To﻿ADB,﻿massively﻿consulting﻿community﻿members﻿to﻿consider﻿
socio-cultural﻿factors﻿often﻿helps﻿to﻿make﻿developmental﻿projects﻿more﻿efficient,﻿but﻿can﻿also﻿stimulate﻿
intense﻿debate﻿and﻿opposition﻿to﻿developmental﻿plans﻿which﻿often﻿cause﻿delays﻿in﻿their﻿executions.
Communities﻿can﻿be﻿defined﻿by﻿their﻿characteristic﻿in﻿terms﻿of﻿beliefs,﻿culture,﻿language,﻿tradition,﻿
law,﻿geography,﻿class﻿and﻿race.﻿As﻿Shaeffer﻿(2012),﻿argues:
Some communities are homogeneous while others are heterogeneous, and some united while 
others are conflictive. Some communities are governed and managed by societal leaders chosen 
democratically in the various communities who act relatively autonomously from other levels taking 
into consideration their socio-cultural roles. Bray (1996) identifies three types of communities; the first 
is geographical community, which is defined according to its member’s place of residence, such as a 
village or district. The second type is ethnic, racial, and religious, in which membership is based on 
ethnic, racial, or religious identification, and usually cuts across membership based on geographical 
location. The third one is communities based on shared family or education concerns, which include 
parents, relations and similar bodies that are based on families’ shared concern like traditions and 
norms for the welfare of the community members in a given society. Though the various definitions 
are by themselves not necessarily exclusive, they represent different forms of socio-cultural factors 
that influence participation.
METHoDoLoGy
Data Sources
Both﻿primary﻿and﻿secondary﻿data﻿were﻿obtained﻿for﻿the﻿research.﻿The﻿researcher﻿reviewed﻿related﻿
literature﻿from﻿secondary﻿sources﻿to﻿support﻿or﻿refute﻿arguments﻿and﻿conclusions﻿about﻿the﻿subject﻿
matter.﻿Such﻿secondary﻿sources﻿included﻿journals,﻿publications﻿and﻿the﻿internet.﻿The﻿primary﻿data﻿
were﻿collected﻿using﻿the﻿questionnaire﻿and﻿the﻿focus-group﻿interview.
Population
The﻿population﻿ of﻿ the﻿ study﻿ comprised﻿ of﻿ all﻿ the﻿ residents﻿ of﻿Amasaman﻿Constituency﻿ (that﻿ is﻿
Amasaman,﻿Obeyeyie,﻿Abehenease,﻿Sapeiman,﻿Opah,﻿Afiaman,﻿and﻿Doblo-Gono)﻿in﻿the﻿Greater-
Accra﻿region,﻿totalling﻿56,960﻿(Ghana﻿Statistical﻿Service,﻿2010).﻿The﻿target﻿population﻿was﻿residents﻿
above﻿eighteen﻿years﻿old﻿who﻿had﻿a﻿minimum﻿of﻿four﻿years﻿permanent﻿residency﻿status﻿within﻿the﻿
municipality;﻿which﻿is﻿about﻿14,960﻿respondents﻿for﻿the﻿six﻿towns﻿within﻿the﻿constituency.
Sample and Sampling Procedure
The﻿lottery﻿method﻿of﻿the﻿simple﻿random﻿sampling﻿technique﻿was﻿used﻿to﻿select﻿three﻿communities—﻿
Amasaman,﻿Obeyeyie,﻿and﻿Opah,﻿out﻿of﻿the﻿six﻿accessible﻿communities﻿for﻿the﻿study.﻿The﻿community﻿
projects﻿used﻿in﻿the﻿study﻿were﻿Amasaman﻿Market﻿Complex,﻿Obeyeyie﻿Toilet﻿Project﻿by﻿International﻿
Central﻿Gospel﻿Church﻿(ICGC)﻿and﻿Opah﻿School﻿complex.
5
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development
Volume 13 • Issue 1
Neuman﻿and﻿Neuman’s﻿(2006)﻿recommended﻿2%﻿random﻿level﻿convenience﻿sampling﻿and﻿this﻿
method﻿was﻿used﻿to﻿select﻿participants﻿from﻿the﻿three﻿communities﻿for﻿the﻿questionnaire﻿administration﻿
and﻿focus﻿group﻿discussion.﻿The﻿researcher﻿included﻿in﻿the﻿sample﻿nine﻿opinion﻿leaders﻿from﻿the﻿
respective﻿communities﻿also﻿by﻿convenience﻿sampling.﻿In﻿all,﻿a﻿sample﻿size﻿of﻿187﻿respondents﻿was﻿
used﻿for﻿the﻿data﻿collection﻿for﻿this﻿study.
Data Collection Instruments
Questionnaire﻿and﻿focused﻿group﻿interview﻿methods﻿were﻿employed﻿for﻿this﻿study.﻿The﻿survey﻿method﻿
helped﻿collect﻿quantitative﻿data﻿with﻿the﻿use﻿of﻿the﻿questionnaire.﻿A﻿total﻿of﻿187﻿questionnaires﻿were﻿
administered﻿and﻿the﻿response﻿rate﻿was﻿100%.﻿Qualitatively,﻿the﻿focus﻿group﻿interview﻿was﻿used.﻿Four﻿
focus﻿groups﻿were﻿constituted﻿by﻿the﻿researcher;﻿one﻿group﻿of﻿seven﻿artisans,﻿another﻿group﻿of﻿five﻿
market﻿women﻿and﻿two﻿households﻿comprising﻿of﻿four﻿and﻿five﻿participants﻿respectively.
Ethical Issues
Ethical﻿clearance﻿was﻿sought﻿for﻿and﻿given﻿by﻿the﻿University﻿of﻿Ghana﻿Humanities﻿Ethics﻿Committee.﻿
Also,﻿permission﻿to﻿conduct﻿the﻿study﻿was﻿given﻿from﻿the﻿opinion﻿leaders﻿of﻿the﻿three﻿communities.﻿
Written﻿and﻿verbal﻿consent﻿were﻿obtained﻿from﻿respondents﻿to﻿participate﻿in﻿the﻿study.﻿The﻿principles﻿
of﻿ anonymity﻿ and﻿ confidentiality﻿were﻿ adhered﻿ to﻿ strictly.﻿The﻿ researcher﻿ also﻿ emphasised﻿ that﻿
participants’﻿information﻿will﻿only﻿be﻿used﻿for﻿academic﻿purposes.
Data Processing and Analysis
The﻿data﻿collected﻿from﻿the﻿questionnaires﻿were﻿numbered﻿serially,﻿edited,﻿coded﻿and﻿then﻿analysed﻿
with﻿ the﻿ version﻿ 22﻿ of﻿ the﻿ Statistical﻿ Package﻿ for﻿ Social﻿ Sciences﻿ (SPSS)﻿ computer﻿ software.﻿
However,﻿additional﻿responses﻿provided﻿which﻿was﻿not﻿part﻿of﻿the﻿questions﻿in﻿the﻿questionnaire﻿
were﻿discussed﻿and﻿used﻿as﻿data﻿for﻿the﻿qualitative﻿analysis.﻿In﻿addition﻿to﻿the﻿qualitative﻿analysis,﻿
comments,﻿statements﻿and﻿responses﻿ from﻿the﻿focus﻿group﻿ interview﻿was﻿ transcribed,﻿coded﻿and﻿
sub-themed﻿for﻿the﻿analysis.
RESULTS
Characteristics of Respondents
Table﻿1﻿shows﻿some﻿selected﻿characteristics﻿of﻿respondents.
Table﻿1﻿shows﻿some﻿characteristics﻿of﻿the﻿participants.﻿The﻿population﻿sample﻿was﻿fairly﻿gender﻿
balanced﻿with﻿49%﻿and﻿51%﻿representing﻿male﻿and﻿female﻿participants﻿respectively.﻿Majority﻿of﻿the﻿
participants﻿fell﻿between﻿the﻿ages﻿25﻿and﻿45﻿forming﻿79%﻿of﻿the﻿participant.﻿Majority﻿of﻿the﻿participants﻿
(72%)﻿had﻿not﻿schooled﻿beyond﻿secondary﻿school.﻿About﻿43%﻿of﻿the﻿participants﻿earn﻿at﻿most﻿GHC﻿
2,000﻿while﻿24%﻿earn﻿above﻿GHC﻿2,000;﻿the﻿remaining﻿33%﻿refused﻿to﻿indicate﻿their﻿income﻿level.
Perception of People About Local Participation
Following﻿some﻿gender﻿biases﻿and﻿varying﻿gender﻿roles﻿and﻿interests﻿observed﻿in﻿the﻿communities,﻿
the﻿researcher﻿decided﻿to﻿interact﻿with﻿both﻿sexes﻿at﻿separate﻿occasions﻿with﻿not﻿too﻿different﻿set﻿of﻿
questions.﻿The﻿results﻿of﻿the﻿findings﻿are﻿presented﻿in﻿Tables﻿2﻿and﻿3.
Table﻿2﻿presents﻿the﻿responses﻿of﻿men’s﻿perception﻿on﻿local﻿participation﻿sampled﻿for﻿the﻿study.﻿
In﻿reference﻿to﻿the﻿attitude﻿of﻿external﻿agencies,﻿a﻿great﻿majority﻿(83%)﻿of﻿the﻿male﻿respondents﻿did﻿
not﻿trust﻿external﻿agencies﻿since﻿they﻿believe﻿these﻿agencies﻿were﻿often﻿not﻿transparent.﻿Again,﻿an﻿
overwhelming﻿majority﻿(92%)﻿of﻿the﻿respondents﻿asserted﻿the﻿agencies﻿do﻿not﻿actually﻿consider﻿their﻿
needs﻿as﻿the﻿basis﻿for﻿the﻿projects.﻿Most﻿of﻿the﻿respondents﻿(67%)﻿intimated﻿the﻿amount﻿of﻿time﻿men﻿
were﻿allowed﻿to﻿participate﻿in﻿community-based﻿projects﻿were﻿inconsequential﻿in﻿the﻿execution﻿and﻿
sustainability﻿of﻿such﻿projects.﻿All﻿the﻿male﻿respondents﻿(100%)﻿agreed﻿that﻿they﻿were﻿barely﻿involved﻿
6
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development
Volume 13 • Issue 1
Table 1. Selected characteristics of respondents
Characteristics Number Percentage
Male 92 49
Sex Female 95 51
Total 187 100
18-24﻿years 4 2
25-35﻿years 50 27
Age 36-45﻿years 97 52
Above﻿46﻿years 36 19
Total 187 100
Primary 40 21
Secondary 94 51
Education Vocational 21 11
University﻿degree 25 13
Masters 7 4
Below﻿500 25 13
501-1000 38 20
1501-2000 19 10
Income﻿Level﻿(GHC)*
2001-2500 7 4
2501-3000 13 8
Above﻿3000 23 12
Source: Field survey, 2017
Note: *Does not add up to total (187) because of missing cases
in﻿the﻿project﻿budgeting﻿and﻿planning.﻿About﻿two-thirds﻿of﻿the﻿male﻿respondents﻿(67%)﻿indicated﻿that﻿
the﻿handling﻿of﻿project﻿money﻿over-empowered﻿the﻿benefactors.
Most﻿of﻿the﻿male﻿respondents﻿(79%)﻿saw﻿their﻿participation﻿in﻿community﻿projects﻿as﻿a﻿source﻿of﻿
employment﻿opportunities,﻿the﻿remaining﻿21%﻿thought﻿otherwise.﻿There﻿was﻿a﻿mixed-response﻿among﻿
the﻿male﻿respondent﻿as﻿51%﻿and﻿49%﻿of﻿the﻿male﻿respondents﻿responded﻿“YES”﻿and﻿“NO”﻿respectively﻿
to﻿the﻿statement:﻿does﻿local﻿participation﻿bring﻿about﻿“Marketing﻿avenues﻿for﻿the﻿local﻿content﻿and﻿
culture”?﻿While﻿17%﻿disagreed,﻿83%﻿of﻿the﻿male﻿respondents﻿believed﻿that﻿their﻿gender﻿roles﻿seriously﻿
influence﻿their﻿degrees﻿of﻿involvement﻿in﻿local﻿participation.﻿Majority﻿of﻿male﻿respondents﻿(79%)﻿
supposed﻿that,﻿the﻿risk﻿averse﻿syndrome﻿of﻿“Do﻿it﻿and﻿let﻿us﻿see”﻿influenced﻿participation﻿while﻿21%﻿
of﻿the﻿respondents﻿held﻿a﻿contrary﻿view.﻿The﻿risk﻿averse﻿syndrome﻿is﻿a﻿situation﻿where﻿local﻿people﻿
look﻿on﻿for﻿something﻿negative﻿to﻿happen﻿to﻿someone﻿or﻿a﻿property﻿in﻿question.﻿This﻿attitude﻿is﻿mostly﻿
exhibited﻿when﻿a﻿condition﻿which﻿is﻿due﻿all﻿people﻿is﻿discriminately﻿given﻿to﻿only﻿a﻿few﻿people.
Additionally,﻿in﻿the﻿focus﻿group﻿discussion,﻿the﻿men﻿reiterated﻿their﻿distrust﻿for﻿a﻿greater﻿number﻿
of﻿donor﻿agencies,﻿which﻿is﻿often﻿dominated﻿by﻿government﻿officials﻿who﻿are﻿not﻿transparent﻿with﻿
their﻿dealings﻿with﻿the﻿local﻿people.﻿In﻿addition,﻿the﻿duration﻿for﻿men’s﻿involvement﻿in﻿community﻿
projects﻿had﻿less﻿impact﻿on﻿the﻿planning﻿and﻿implementation﻿of﻿the﻿projects.﻿To﻿most﻿of﻿the﻿male﻿
interviewees,﻿the﻿length﻿of﻿project﻿involvement﻿is﻿crucial﻿because﻿it﻿impacts﻿their﻿availability﻿to﻿attend﻿
to﻿another﻿livelihood﻿programme.
Table﻿3﻿ shows﻿ the﻿women’s﻿perception﻿about﻿ local﻿participation.﻿A﻿great﻿majority﻿ (90%)﻿of﻿
the﻿women﻿believe﻿community﻿projects﻿do﻿not﻿directly﻿target﻿women﻿and﻿children;﻿hence﻿their﻿low﻿
7
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development
Volume 13 • Issue 1
Table 2. Response of men’s perception on local participation
YES NO
Perception
Number % Number %
Attitude﻿of﻿external﻿agencies:
-They﻿are﻿not﻿transparent﻿and﻿cannot﻿be﻿trusted. 76 83 16 17
-Most﻿often﻿our﻿own﻿needs﻿are﻿not﻿determined﻿by﻿us. 85 92 7 8
-Duration﻿of﻿participation﻿of﻿men﻿often﻿has﻿minimal﻿influence﻿on﻿
community﻿projects. 62 67 30 33
-Local﻿involvement﻿in﻿budgeting﻿and﻿project﻿planning﻿is﻿low,﻿
usually﻿absent. 92 100 0 0
-Handling﻿of﻿money﻿meant﻿for﻿projects﻿confer﻿power﻿on﻿benefactors 62 67 30 33
Local﻿Participation﻿brings﻿about:
-Opportunities﻿for﻿employment﻿for﻿community﻿
Members 73 79 19 21
-Marketing﻿avenue﻿of﻿local﻿content﻿and﻿culture 47 51 45 49
-Gender﻿roles﻿seriously﻿influence﻿men’s﻿involvement﻿in﻿local﻿
participation 76 83 16 17
-Risk﻿averse﻿particularly﻿with﻿the﻿syndrome﻿“do﻿it﻿and﻿let’s﻿see”. 73 79 19 21
Total 646 78 182 22
Source: Field survey, 2017
Table 3. Response of women’s perception of local participation
YES NO
Perception
Number % Number %
-Projects﻿that﻿do﻿not﻿directly﻿target﻿women﻿and﻿children﻿is﻿what﻿
come﻿into﻿their﻿communities 85 90 10 10
-No﻿empowering﻿programme﻿to﻿build﻿the﻿capacity﻿of﻿women 72 76 23 24
-Local﻿involvement﻿in﻿budgeting﻿and﻿project﻿planning﻿is﻿low.﻿
Usually﻿absent. 77 81 18 19
-Handling﻿of﻿money﻿meant﻿for﻿projects﻿confer﻿power﻿on﻿benefactors 82 86 13 14
-Local﻿Participation﻿provides﻿opportunities﻿for﻿employment 85 90 10 10
-﻿Local﻿Participation﻿provides﻿marketing﻿avenue﻿of﻿local﻿content﻿
and﻿culture 31 33 64 67
-Gender﻿roles﻿seriously﻿affect﻿women’s﻿involvement﻿in﻿local﻿
participation 77 81 18 19
-Risk﻿averse﻿particularly﻿with﻿the﻿syndrome﻿“do﻿it﻿and﻿let’s﻿see”. 31 33 64 67
Source: Field survey, 2017
participation.﻿This﻿was﻿because﻿they﻿said﻿they﻿often﻿participated﻿in﻿projects,﻿which﻿were﻿targeted﻿
at﻿them.﻿About﻿two-thirds﻿(76%)﻿of﻿the﻿women﻿added﻿that﻿the﻿projects﻿seldom﻿came﻿with﻿capacity﻿
building﻿programmes﻿ for﻿ them﻿although﻿ they﻿believe﻿ their﻿ participation﻿ in﻿development﻿projects﻿
should﻿offer﻿them﻿empowerment﻿programmes﻿that﻿will﻿build﻿their﻿capacity﻿into﻿leadership﻿roles﻿as﻿
well﻿as﻿opportunities﻿for﻿development.﻿About﻿81﻿percent﻿indicated﻿that﻿they﻿were﻿barely﻿involved﻿
8
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development
Volume 13 • Issue 1
in﻿the﻿planning﻿and﻿budgeting﻿of﻿the﻿community﻿projects.﻿A﻿vast﻿majority﻿(82%)﻿believe﻿handling﻿
project﻿money﻿empowered﻿benefactors﻿but﻿the﻿remaining﻿14﻿percent﻿were﻿of﻿a﻿contrary﻿view.﻿An﻿
overwhelming﻿majority﻿(90%)﻿saw﻿local﻿participation﻿as﻿employment﻿opportunities.﻿Two-thirds﻿(67%)﻿
of﻿the﻿women﻿did﻿not﻿see﻿local﻿participation﻿as﻿an﻿avenue﻿to﻿market﻿local﻿content﻿and﻿culture,﻿however﻿
the﻿ remaining﻿ third﻿believe﻿ the﻿contrary.﻿A﻿ large﻿majority﻿ (81%)﻿believe﻿gender﻿ roles﻿ influenced﻿
their﻿involvement﻿in﻿local﻿participation.﻿Majority﻿(67%)﻿did﻿not﻿believe﻿in﻿the﻿risk﻿averse﻿syndrome,﻿
particularly﻿“do﻿it﻿let’s﻿see”,﻿affected﻿local﻿participation.
Socio-Cultural Factors That Influence Community Participation
This﻿section﻿sought﻿ to﻿ identify﻿socio-cultural﻿ factors﻿ that﻿ impede﻿or﻿ facilitate﻿ local﻿participation.﻿
The﻿study﻿identified﻿that﻿every﻿stakeholder﻿is﻿responsible﻿for﻿the﻿promotion﻿of﻿local﻿participation﻿
in﻿development﻿projects.﻿The﻿respondents﻿asserted﻿that﻿it﻿is﻿imperative﻿for﻿stakeholders﻿to﻿partner﻿
community﻿members﻿to﻿achieve﻿this﻿end.
The﻿respondents﻿added﻿that,﻿transparency﻿and﻿accountability﻿are﻿social﻿values﻿that﻿positively﻿
influence﻿participation.﻿One﻿respondent﻿said﻿that:﻿“when they are kept in the dark about the allocation 
and use of resources as well as how the activities were carried out in previous projects, it negatively 
reinforces the local people to participate in subsequent projects”.﻿ Some﻿other﻿ respondents﻿ also﻿
identified﻿that:﻿“the absence or lack of reliable information on community members when it comes 
to participation negatively influences their participation”.
Community﻿or﻿social﻿cohesion﻿is﻿one﻿sociocultural﻿factor﻿ that﻿ influences﻿ local﻿participation.﻿
The﻿participants﻿revealed﻿that,﻿when﻿projects﻿to﻿be﻿executed﻿tend﻿to﻿disrupt﻿the﻿communities’﻿social﻿
and﻿cultural﻿cohesion,﻿usually﻿most﻿community﻿members﻿withdraw﻿from﻿participating.﻿They﻿raised﻿
social﻿attacks﻿and﻿cultural﻿segregations﻿as﻿some﻿reasons﻿why﻿some﻿members﻿would﻿withhold﻿their﻿
involvement﻿and/or﻿hesitate﻿on﻿fully﻿contributing﻿toward﻿the﻿project﻿if﻿socio-cultural﻿conflict﻿tag﻿is﻿
given﻿to﻿a﻿particular﻿project.
They﻿ added﻿ that﻿ peace﻿ and﻿ stability﻿ is﻿ a﻿major﻿ socio-cultural﻿ factor﻿which﻿ promotes﻿ local﻿
participation﻿within﻿their﻿communities.﻿From﻿the﻿focus﻿group﻿discussion,﻿the﻿respondents﻿said,﻿“there 
can be no development without peace and stability”.﻿They﻿averred﻿ that,﻿where﻿ there﻿ is﻿ conflict,﻿
people﻿cannot﻿move﻿around﻿freely﻿to﻿engage﻿in﻿activities﻿that﻿promotes﻿development.﻿They﻿explained﻿
two﻿forms﻿of﻿conflict﻿that﻿may﻿ensue﻿in﻿the﻿community﻿and﻿these﻿were﻿conflicts﻿among﻿the﻿various﻿
groups﻿in﻿the﻿community﻿and﻿conflicts﻿in﻿the﻿community﻿development﻿process.﻿With﻿conflicts﻿among﻿
community﻿members﻿people﻿from﻿an﻿opposing﻿camp﻿may﻿not﻿want﻿ to﻿associate﻿ themselves﻿with﻿
initiatives﻿coming﻿from﻿the﻿other﻿end.﻿This﻿makes﻿community﻿development﻿difficult﻿since﻿more﻿and﻿
more﻿hands﻿are﻿needed﻿in﻿whatever﻿form﻿(financial﻿or﻿human)﻿to﻿successfully﻿execute﻿development﻿
activities.﻿Conflicts﻿in﻿the﻿development﻿process﻿normally﻿arise﻿from﻿the﻿entrenched﻿positions﻿taken﻿
by﻿some﻿members.﻿This﻿brings﻿about﻿formation﻿of﻿polarized﻿groups﻿who﻿will﻿not﻿be﻿willing﻿to﻿accept﻿
the﻿views﻿of﻿other﻿groups.﻿In﻿situations﻿where﻿the﻿leadership﻿lacks﻿the﻿necessary﻿negotiation﻿skills,﻿
community﻿discussions﻿may﻿degenerate﻿into﻿conflicts.
Another﻿ socio-cultural﻿ factor﻿ found﻿was﻿ the﻿ communities’﻿ perception﻿ of﻿ local﻿ participation﻿
as﻿a﻿social﻿right﻿and﻿not﻿a﻿privilege﻿so﻿they﻿must﻿exercise﻿it﻿to﻿the﻿fullest.﻿Hence,﻿recognizing﻿that﻿
participation﻿is﻿a﻿human﻿right,﻿any﻿attempt﻿by﻿any﻿leader﻿to﻿use﻿his/her﻿political﻿office﻿to﻿prevent﻿them﻿
from﻿participating﻿will﻿be﻿frowned﻿at﻿and﻿kicked﻿against.﻿This﻿is﻿in﻿line﻿with﻿the﻿tenets﻿enshrined﻿
in﻿article﻿27(1)﻿of﻿the﻿Universal﻿Declaration﻿of﻿Human﻿Rights﻿that﻿“everyone﻿has﻿the﻿right﻿to﻿freely﻿
participate﻿in﻿the﻿cultural,﻿economic﻿and﻿social﻿life﻿of﻿the﻿community﻿and﻿to﻿enjoy﻿the﻿arts﻿and﻿share﻿
in﻿scientific﻿advancement﻿and﻿its﻿benefits”.
Education﻿was﻿ another﻿ socio-cultural﻿ factor﻿ identified﻿ by﻿ the﻿ participants.﻿ It﻿was﻿ revealed﻿
during﻿the﻿focus﻿group﻿interviews﻿that;﻿the﻿respondents﻿appreciated﻿the﻿fact﻿that﻿education﻿plays﻿a﻿
pivotal﻿role﻿on﻿the﻿amount﻿of﻿input﻿they﻿can﻿make﻿in﻿community-based﻿projects.﻿Education,﻿whether﻿
formally﻿or﻿informally﻿done,﻿shapes﻿and﻿refines﻿the﻿quality﻿and﻿quantity﻿of﻿experiences﻿and﻿level﻿of﻿
expertise﻿brought﻿on﻿board﻿during﻿participation.﻿The﻿social﻿function﻿of﻿education,﻿when﻿it﻿is﻿absent﻿
9
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development
Volume 13 • Issue 1
or﻿inadequate﻿negatively﻿influences﻿participation﻿at﻿any﻿of﻿the﻿various﻿stages﻿in﻿the﻿project﻿execution.﻿
It﻿was﻿revealed﻿that﻿whenever﻿a﻿community-based﻿project﻿is﻿to﻿be﻿designed﻿or﻿even﻿implemented,﻿
the﻿local﻿people﻿are﻿to﻿be﻿informed,﻿and﻿trained﻿on﻿how﻿to﻿use,﻿protect﻿and﻿maintain﻿the﻿property.﻿
This,﻿they﻿believe,﻿enhances﻿project﻿ownership﻿that﻿is﻿essential﻿for﻿the﻿sustainability﻿of﻿the﻿project.
Another﻿social﻿factor﻿identified﻿included﻿the﻿level﻿at﻿which﻿the﻿communities﻿were﻿engaged﻿in﻿the﻿
development﻿process.﻿It﻿was﻿revealed﻿that﻿the﻿level﻿at﻿which﻿major﻿stakeholders﻿such﻿as﻿the﻿chiefs﻿and﻿
other﻿community﻿leaders﻿get﻿to﻿participate﻿in﻿decisions﻿concerning﻿the﻿project﻿usually﻿does﻿guarantee﻿
the﻿cultural﻿content﻿of﻿the﻿people﻿the﻿project﻿is﻿meant﻿for.﻿During﻿the﻿focus﻿group﻿interviews,﻿some﻿
respondents﻿posited﻿ that,﻿“projects usually brought to them often do not take into consideration 
the local content demands of their respective communities”,﻿for﻿this﻿reason,﻿it﻿is﻿believed﻿by﻿some﻿
of﻿the﻿community﻿members﻿that﻿‘some﻿people﻿have﻿their﻿project﻿and﻿so﻿let﻿them﻿do﻿it’.﻿People﻿will﻿
participate﻿and﻿contribute﻿significantly﻿to﻿something﻿they﻿feel﻿part﻿of,﻿can﻿be﻿identified﻿with﻿culturally,﻿
and﻿correlate﻿with﻿their﻿efforts.
The﻿members﻿of﻿the﻿community﻿advised﻿that﻿projects﻿brought﻿to﻿them﻿should﻿not﻿be﻿used﻿for﻿
political﻿points﻿but﻿instead﻿as﻿an﻿opportunity﻿to﻿make﻿them﻿feel﻿as﻿being﻿part﻿of﻿a﻿state﻿which﻿cares﻿
for﻿her﻿citizens.
CoNCLUSIoN
The﻿study﻿sought﻿to﻿find﻿out﻿how﻿the﻿Ga﻿West﻿Municipality﻿locals﻿perceived﻿local﻿participation﻿and﻿
also﻿find﻿out﻿some﻿socio-cultural﻿factors﻿that﻿influence﻿participation.﻿The﻿study﻿found﻿that﻿participation﻿
among﻿the﻿sexes﻿varied﻿depending﻿on﻿the﻿kind﻿of﻿developmental﻿project﻿and﻿also﻿there﻿is﻿a﻿gross﻿
distrust﻿among﻿the﻿community﻿members,﻿particularly﻿the﻿men,﻿towards﻿development﻿agencies﻿because﻿
the﻿communities﻿are﻿less﻿informed﻿about﻿the﻿agencies’﻿activities.﻿It﻿was﻿revealed﻿that﻿the﻿people﻿see﻿
local﻿participation﻿as﻿employment﻿opportunities﻿as﻿well﻿as﻿avenues﻿for﻿them﻿to﻿decide﻿on﻿their﻿needs﻿
and﻿how﻿to﻿satisfy﻿these﻿needs﻿while﻿encouraging﻿accountability.﻿The﻿study﻿also﻿found﻿out﻿that﻿the﻿
local﻿people﻿were﻿barely﻿involved﻿in﻿the﻿planning﻿and﻿to﻿a﻿large﻿extent﻿the﻿implementation﻿phases﻿of﻿
the﻿developmental﻿projects﻿brought﻿to﻿their﻿communities.﻿It﻿was﻿further﻿revealed﻿that﻿women﻿were﻿of﻿
the﻿opinion﻿that﻿projects﻿brought﻿to﻿them﻿were﻿not﻿feminine﻿enough﻿and﻿did﻿not﻿build﻿their﻿capacity.
The﻿study﻿revealed﻿that﻿all﻿stakeholders﻿were﻿responsible﻿for﻿the﻿promotion﻿of﻿local﻿participation﻿
and﻿ that﻿ education﻿ and﻿ information﻿were﻿ some﻿ socio-cultural﻿ factors﻿which﻿ influenced﻿ local﻿
participation.﻿Again,﻿social﻿cohesion,﻿peace﻿and﻿security,﻿and﻿conflicts﻿were﻿also﻿identified﻿as﻿socio-
cultural﻿factors﻿that﻿influenced﻿local﻿participation.﻿Additionally,﻿the﻿locals’﻿perception﻿of﻿social﻿right﻿
also﻿influenced﻿local﻿participation.
Based﻿on﻿the﻿findings﻿the﻿study﻿recommends﻿that﻿community﻿members﻿should﻿be﻿empowered﻿
to﻿participate﻿more﻿ in﻿ the﻿planning﻿and﻿ implementation﻿of﻿development﻿programmes﻿or﻿projects﻿
while﻿ all﻿ stakeholder﻿groups﻿ (which﻿ include﻿ the﻿ local﻿ people),﻿ are﻿ also﻿given﻿ the﻿opportunity﻿ to﻿
contribute﻿to﻿decision﻿making﻿as﻿this﻿helps﻿to﻿ensure﻿that﻿the﻿right﻿need﻿is﻿satisfied﻿so﻿that﻿ownership﻿
and﻿ accountability﻿ become﻿ the﻿ responsibility﻿ of﻿ all.﻿Also,﻿ community﻿ leaders﻿ should﻿ champion﻿
developmental﻿projects﻿ in﻿ their﻿ communities﻿ so﻿as﻿ to﻿create﻿more﻿employment﻿avenues﻿ for﻿ their﻿
people.﻿It﻿is﻿also﻿recommended﻿that﻿community﻿leaders﻿take﻿socio-cultural﻿factors﻿that﻿enhance﻿local﻿
participation﻿more﻿seriously.
10
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development
Volume 13 • Issue 1
REFERENCES
African﻿Development﻿Bank﻿(ADB).﻿(2013).﻿Policies for developing economies.﻿ADB.
Ahwoi,﻿K.﻿(2007).﻿Local government and decentralization in Ghana.﻿Unimax﻿Macmillan﻿Ltd.
Amon,﻿P.﻿(2014).﻿Citizens﻿panels:﻿A﻿new﻿approach﻿to﻿citizen﻿participation.﻿Public Management Forum,﻿46,﻿
170-178.
Asante,﻿D.﻿P.﻿(2015).﻿Local governance in Africa, the challenges of democratic decentralization.﻿Lynne﻿Rienne﻿
Publishers﻿Inc.
Ayee,﻿J.﻿R.﻿A.﻿(2000a).﻿The﻿balance﻿sheet﻿of﻿decentralization﻿in﻿Ghana.﻿Journal of Public Administration and 
Governance,﻿3(2),﻿231–244.
Ayoade,﻿J.﻿A.﻿A.﻿(2000).﻿Decentralization﻿in﻿West﻿Africa,﻿theory:﻿Plus﻿or﻿minus.﻿Local Government Information 
Digest,﻿15(31),﻿200–202.
Blackburn,﻿J.,﻿&﻿Holland,﻿J.﻿(2007).﻿Who Changes? Institutionalizing Participation in Development.﻿Intermediate﻿
Technology﻿Publications.
Boakye-Agyei,﻿K.﻿(2009).﻿Fostering civic engagement: Stakeholder participation in rural projects in Ghana﻿
(PhD﻿Thesis).﻿George﻿Mason﻿University,﻿Fairfax,﻿VA.
Boateng,﻿E,﻿A.﻿ (2012).﻿Government and the people: Outlook for democracy in Ghana.﻿Accra:﻿Axis﻿ studio﻿
Ghana﻿Ltd.
Bray,﻿M.﻿(1996).﻿Community financing of education: Issues and policy implications in less developed countries.﻿
Pergamon﻿Press.
Brodie,﻿M.﻿L.,﻿Cowling,﻿M.﻿T.,﻿&﻿Nissen,﻿M.﻿ (2009).﻿Factors﻿ that﻿affect﻿decision﻿making:﻿Gender﻿and﻿age﻿
differences.﻿International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy,﻿7(3),﻿381–391.
Burns,﻿D.﻿L.,﻿&﻿Taylor,﻿M.﻿(2000).﻿Auditing community participation.﻿Policy﻿Press.
Chambers,﻿R.﻿ (2005).﻿ Participatory﻿ rural﻿ appraisal﻿ (PRA):﻿Challenges,﻿ potentials﻿ and﻿ paradigm.﻿World 
Development,﻿22(10),﻿1437–1454.﻿doi:10.1016/0305-750X(94)90030-2
Cohen,﻿ J.﻿M.,﻿&﻿Uphoff,﻿N.﻿T.﻿ (1980).﻿ Participations﻿ place﻿ in﻿ rural﻿ development:﻿ Seeking﻿ clarity﻿ through﻿
specification.﻿World Development,﻿8(1),﻿2–3.
Community﻿Development﻿ Society.﻿ (2012).﻿ Principles﻿ of﻿ good﻿ practice.﻿Vanguard.﻿The Newsletter of the 
Community Development Society,﻿32(3),﻿1.
Dadzie,﻿A.﻿ (2000),﻿Closing﻿ ceremony﻿of﻿ 7th﻿ conference﻿ of﻿DCEs.﻿Local Government Information Digest,﻿
12(16),﻿2﻿-﻿6.
Fundi,﻿J.﻿(2005).﻿It’s﻿good﻿to﻿talk?﻿Examining﻿attitudes﻿towards﻿corporate﻿social﻿responsibility﻿dialogue﻿and﻿
engagement﻿processes.﻿Business Ethics (Oxford, England),﻿15(2),﻿154–170.
Ghana﻿Statistical﻿Service.﻿(2010).﻿2010 Population and Housing Census.﻿Author.
International﻿Journal﻿of﻿Humanities﻿and﻿Social﻿Sciences﻿(IJHSS).﻿(2016).﻿The evolving nature of community 
participation in public development projects in Kenya: A literature review.﻿IJHSS.
Kakumba,﻿U.﻿&﻿Nsingo,﻿S.﻿A.﻿M.﻿(2016).﻿Citizen participation in local government and the process of rural 
development: the rhetoric and reality in Uganda.﻿Academic﻿Press.
Kaler,﻿F.﻿G.﻿(1999).﻿The﻿place﻿of﻿sub-district﻿structures﻿in﻿the﻿decentralized﻿local﻿government﻿system.﻿In﻿Selected 
Speeches and Papers.﻿MLGRD﻿Publication.
Karfui,﻿A.﻿G.﻿(2014).﻿Community-based﻿environmental﻿management﻿in﻿urban﻿Tanzania.﻿Community Development 
Journal: An International Forum,﻿32,﻿23–27.
11
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development
Volume 13 • Issue 1
Karl,﻿B.﻿(2015).﻿Settled in the community: An evaluation of five years of community living for residents relocated 
from Kew Residential Services, 1999-2005.﻿Department﻿of﻿Human﻿Services.
Korkor,﻿J.﻿K.﻿(2014).﻿Decentralization: Overview of meaning and process.﻿Kumasi:﻿Department﻿of﻿Planning,﻿
KNUST.
Mohammed,﻿S.﻿N.﻿(2010).﻿People’s participation in development projects at grassrootlevel: a case study of 
Alampur and Jagannathpur Union Parishad﻿(Master’s﻿Thesis).﻿MPPG﻿Program,﻿Department﻿of﻿General﻿and﻿
Continuing﻿Education,﻿North﻿South﻿University,﻿Bangladesh.
Nelson,﻿N.,﻿&﻿Wright,﻿S.﻿(Eds.).﻿(2005).﻿Power﻿and﻿participatory﻿development:﻿Theory﻿and﻿practice.﻿Intermediate﻿
Technology,﻿1(2),﻿2﻿–﻿10.
Neuman,﻿W.﻿L.,﻿&﻿Neuman,﻿W.﻿L.﻿(2006).﻿Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.﻿
Longman.
Oakley,﻿P.,﻿&﻿Marsden,﻿D.﻿J.﻿(1984).﻿Approaches to participation in rural development.﻿ILO.
Pateman,﻿C.﻿(1999).﻿Participation and democratic theory.﻿Cambridge﻿University﻿Press.
Rahmato,﻿D.﻿(1991).﻿Investing﻿in﻿tradition.﻿Journal of the European Society for Rural Sociology,﻿31(3),﻿169–183.﻿
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.1991.tb00899.x
Reed,﻿N.﻿J.﻿(2008).﻿How﻿people﻿power﻿brings﻿sustainable﻿benefits﻿to﻿communities.﻿USAID Rural Development,﻿
1(2),﻿66.
Rudqvist,﻿A.,﻿&﻿Woodford-Berger,﻿P.﻿ (1996).﻿Evaluation and participation: Some lessons. SIDA Studies in 
Evaluation.﻿SIDA.
Rural﻿Communities﻿Impacting﻿Policy﻿Document.﻿(2011).﻿Challenges and development management perspective.﻿
Van﻿Schaik﻿Publishers.
Samad,﻿M.﻿(2002).﻿Participation of the rural poor in government and NGO programs.﻿Mowla﻿Brothers.
Shaeffer,﻿K.﻿(2012).﻿Stock assessment in the Mediterranean.﻿Samed﻿Final﻿Report﻿to﻿the﻿European﻿Commission,﻿
DG﻿Fisheries﻿(DG﻿XIV),﻿Project﻿no.﻿99/047.
Sill,﻿D.﻿(2016).﻿Voluntary﻿associations:﻿Sociological﻿aspects.﻿International﻿Encyclopedia﻿of﻿the﻿Social﻿Sciences,﻿
4(16),﻿33﻿-﻿35.
Tandon,﻿R.,﻿&﻿Cordeiro,﻿A.﻿(1998).﻿Participation of primary stakeholders in World Bank’s project and policy 
work.﻿Society﻿for﻿Participatory﻿Research﻿in﻿Asia.
Thompson,﻿ J.﻿ (2005).﻿Keynote Address at the Center for Adult & Community Education/Aontas/National 
Committee for Development Education Conference.﻿Dublin:﻿A﻿New﻿Agenda﻿for﻿Lifelong﻿Learning.
United﻿States﻿Agency﻿ for﻿ International﻿Development﻿ (USAID).﻿ (1995).﻿Congressional presentation: Fiscal 
year, 1993 for Africa.﻿USAID.
Verba,﻿K.,﻿Schlozman,﻿M.,﻿&﻿Brady,﻿F.﻿ (1995).﻿Theories of Participation and High Intensity Participation.﻿
University﻿of﻿Michigan﻿Press.
Work,﻿L.﻿(2002).﻿Learning to engage: Experiences with civic engagement in Canada.﻿Canadian﻿Policy﻿Research﻿
Networks,﻿Inc.
World﻿Bank.﻿(2000).﻿The World Bank and participation.﻿Operations﻿Policy﻿Department,﻿World﻿Bank.
World﻿Bank.﻿(2002).﻿Participatory Development and the World Bank.﻿World﻿Bank.
12
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development
Volume 13 • Issue 1
Abigail A. Aryeh-Adjei is a lecturer at the University of Ghana and teaches at the Department of Adult Education 
and Human Resource Studies. She holds a bachelors in Agriculture, masters in Agricultural Extension and a PhD. 
in Community Development and Management. She currently lectures in various courses in developmental studies 
and does research in the same field.
Samuel Afotey Anang is a lecturer at the University of Energy and Natural Resources and teaches at the Department 
of Agricultural Economics, Agribusiness and Extension. He holds a bachelors in Agriculture, masters in Agricultural 
Extension and a PhD. in Agricultural Economics and Management. He currently lectures in various courses in 
Agricultural Economics and Extension and conducts research in the same fields.
Diana Osei-Adusah had her first degree from University of Education, Winneba, in English Education and M.Phil in 
Adult Education and Human Resource from the University of Ghana. She currently works at the Ga West Municipal 
Assembly Education Office as the Monitoring and Evaluation Officer.
13
View publication stats