There are three ways in which project characteristics may affect patterns of participation. These are categorised as entry effects, benefit effects and design effects, each of which is further differentiated into sub-themes.
Entry effects are identified in terms of technological complexity and resource requirements. The first looks at the use of complex technology which can restrict participation in project implementation (in contrast to more labour intensive methods), as well as complicated project design which may require sophisticated accounting and/or marketing practices thus excluding people without the necessary skills or knowledge. The second, looks at what resources are required by the project. The amount of inputs needed may limit the
participation of some individuals or groups who do not have the required land, labour, or capital.
There are four factors to be considered in terms of benefit effects: tangibility; probability; immediacy and distribution. Tangibility refers to the need for people to see the benefits. For example, an early crop and subsequent
income increase will encourage participation and enable an appreciation of benefits more than a crop programme planned to ensure the stability of crop yields over time. Probability refers to the need to realise expected benefits. 'Ib participate in any project activity is a risk. Villagers with a greater access to factors of production are more likely to adopt new crops with a higher risk factor than smaller cultivators. The greater the risk, the harder it will be to encourage participation from the poor. The immediacy of benefits is important. Local community members are more likely to participate in a project in which benefits are realised early (e.g., building an access road from the village to the main road) than one which will take many years to get the benefits (e.g., a reforestation project). The question of distribution of benefits relates to the issue of whether the project design includes or excludes particular groups. There are three important questions. Do all members of the target population benefit equally? Do certain groups benefit more than others? Do certain groups benefit only at the expense of others?
Four design effects are listed in the model: programme linkages;
programme flexibility; administrative accessibility and administrative coverage. In relation to programme linkages, it is easier to generate participation when a project has several complementary components. For example, a reforestation project with major benefits only in the long term may be supported through encouragement of agro-forestry which will return some early benefits.
Programme flexibility will encourage participation (e.g., if the project allows local people to contribute to the formulation of project activities, if it is open to
innovations based on project experience and if it is able to respond to local needs). Administrative accessibility refers to the ability of a project to make management
decisions locally or quickly. If local people can input their ideas easily, their
participation in project activities will be enhanced. Administrative coverage refers to the intensity of the interaction between project personnel and local people and the services provided to local people.
The task environment
The task environment describes the contextual factors which influence decisions of local people. An understanding of these factors will provide some explanation for the 'What?' 'Who?' and 'How?' questions. In the final analysis, it will be the interplay of all three, rather than indivi�ual factors which will explain the pattern of participation. The model identifies seven factors: physical,
biological, economic, political, social, cultural and historical which will influence the level of participation in a project. There are many examples of these.
Physical and biological factors include rainfall, weather patterns and isolation. Soil fertility will affect the time and effort required by farmers to grow their
crops. Proximity to fuel wood and water will affect the workload of women.
Economic factors include the scarcity of land, labour, capital, skills and
transportation. Debts and obligations to landlords may prove major obstacles to participation for tenant farmers or the landless. Political factors include lack of support for or opposition to a rural development project by central or local
government agencies. Social factors include social stratification, tribal structures and ethnic differences. The more heterogeneous a target population, the more difficult it will be to organise participation and co-operation at a larger level.
Cultural factors include values which can discourage participation of certain groups such as women and young people. They can make it difficult to develop new structures, because of tribal or family obligations and attitudes. Historical factors include previous negative experiences of participatory projects, colonial
experience, missionary experience or limited contact with the cash economy which make it difficult to encourage new ideas or ways of doing things.
Limitations of the Cohen and Uphoff model
The Cohen and Uphoff model provides a matrix of different aspects of participation. It is an abstract conceptualisation of rural development participation which identifies categories of dimensions and contexts. In
analysing a particular project, two factors will be important: all aspects described in the model may not be able to be assessed and j udgments will have to be made
about which are important. It will also be important to consider the relationships between dimensions and contexts in a particular social and biophysical setting.
Other factors must be considered when analysing popular participation in a rural development project involving outside agencies. Cohen and Uphoff's model leaves out the question, 'Participation for whom and for what purpose?,5 This question is difficult because there are several perspectives from which it can be asked. The model indicates that there are many different individuals and groups which may wish to promote, encourage, control, or even stop the
participation of others. Communities are rarely homogeneous and even if this was the case, the impact of a project may well extend beyond its boundaries and
increase the power, wealth or influence of the target group compared to others. Given that most rural development projects are initiated from outside, either by
government or non-governmental agencies or by overseas donors, Cohen and Uphoff ( 1980:227) identified a key question as:
"Is the purpose which the authorities have in mind for getting people to participate the same as, or compatible with, the purpose the people themselves would accept as their own"?
The fourth dimension can be explored in the case study using the Cohen and Uphoff model as long as the perspectives and objectives of different key groups of participants are identified. The analysis must consider interaction between participants, whether the interests and actions of the different groups are
consistent or conflict, the impact of more powerful participants on others and how these affect participation. Participation for whom, and for what purpose, adds a necessary fourth dimension to the Cohen and Uphoff modeL
Other studies have indicated that external factors are important in analysing participation. For example, Gow and Vansant ( 1983) identified three primary categories of external constraints which inhibited effective local
participation: national policies, bureaucracies of both national agencies and foreign donors and constraints in the local environment. The first two were considered by and large to be outside the control of project designers or managers and largely intractable. The third was considered manageable if relevant issues were recognised and addressed. The Cohen and Uphoff model addressed
constraints in the local environment in terms of its impact on the patterns of rural development participation. National policies and bureaucracies are not explicitly covered by their model but are significant in terms of their potential impact on project outcomes. They are explicitly included in the analytical
framework for this study, particularly since the role of the bureaucracies of both the donor agency and the host country in promoting or inhibiting popular
participation is a key question in this thesis. These external factors are discussed further by expanding the framework to include a systems model of human ecology and Korton's organisational models for project plannjng.