EFFECT OF SELECTED INSECTICIDE ON WHITEFLY (Bemisia tabaci) INFESTING BRINJAL PLANTS


Publisher: Asian Economic and Social Society 
ISSN (P): 2304-1455, ISSN (E): 2224-4433  
Volume 2 No. 3 September 2012. 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participation in Development: A Case Study on 

Local Participation in Rural Water Supply and 

Sanitation in Vietnam  
 

Dang Ngoc Toan (Development practitioner and lecturer in 

development studies at the College for Vocational Training of 

the Central Highlands Ethnic Minority Youths, Daklak, 

Vietnam) 

 

 

 

 

 

Citation: Dang Ngoc Toan (2012) “Participation in Development: A Case Study on Local 

Participation in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation in Vietnam”, Asian Journal of Agriculture 

and Rural Development, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 422-446. 



Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 422-446. 

422 
 

 
 
Author(s) 
 

Dang Ngoc Toan  
Development practitioner and 

lecturer in development studies at 

the College for Vocational 
Training of the Central Highlands 

Ethnic Minority Youths,  Daklak, 

Vietnam  
Email: 

dngtoandaklak@gmail.com   
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participation in Development: A Case Study on Local 

Participation in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation 

in Vietnam 
 

Abstract 

 

Since the adoption of Doi Moi (reform) policy in 1986, local 

participation has attracted special attention in development 

projects in Vietnam.  In particular, the questions of whether 

local participation in development projects should be promoted 

and whether it would be feasible became a major concern 

among development practitioners, as the debates on 

participation and project sustainability continued. While some 

argued that although socio-economic, cultural, ethnic and 

political obstacles were always present, many also believed 

that the promises of participation in development projects in 

Vietnam had been strengthened in recent times especially when 

the Government realised that its top-down approach in 

implementing development projects could only weaken local 

capacity. This article is an examination of how participatory 

approach was promoted in two villages in Daklak province, 

Vietnam, where a Danish-funded RWSS (Rural water supply 

and sanitation) project was implemented. It investigates how 

development was perceived differently by local people and 

other major stakeholders, and in turn, how participation was 

exercised. It also identifies the obstacles that emerged that 

hampered local participation and discusses how locals 

responded with appropriate solutions.  

 

Background  

 

The term “participation” has been closely 

associated with development projects recently. 

Yet historically the participatory approach can 

be traced back to the 1940s. In practice, it was 

only in the 1960s that participation was given 

wide attention in development studies. 

However, despite its popularity and wider 

recognition, there is still not one single 

definition of participation that is universally 

accepted and various interpretations of what 

participation entails abound.  

  

According to Pearse and Stiefe (l979), 

participation is concerned with efforts that aim 

to increase control and influence over available 

resources in given social contexts on the part of 

groups and movements of those hitherto 

excluded from such control. Paul (1987) defined  

 

participation as a process by which intended 

beneficiaries have an influence over the 

direction and execution of a project with a view 

to enhancing their social-economic well-being. 

Similarly, Tikare et al. (1979) stated that 

participation is seen as a process through which 

all related stakeholders influence and share 

control over priority setting, policy-making, 

resource allocations and access to public goods 

and services. Implicit in these definitions is that 

there is no blueprint of participation as it is 

practiced in different contexts. 

 

In Latin America, participation is considered 

beneficiaries’ voluntary contribution in projects, 

but they are not expected to take part in shaping, 

changing the projects or criticizing their 

designed contents (ECLA
1
 1973). Oakley 

(1991) argued that participation could be 

                                                 
1
 Economic Commission for Latin America  

mailto:dngtoandaklak@gmail.com


Participation in Development: A Case Study..... 

423 
 

approached from two angles. One is to regard 

participation as a means and the other as an end. 

As a means, participation is used as a vehicle to 

achieve a predetermined goal rather than 

participation itself. As an end, participation 

means placing its concentration more on 

capacity building and strengthening 

participants’ confidence, believing that their 

own involvement will ensure developmental 

activities in their community to be more 

effective and sustainable. As a conclusion, he 

stresses that participation, whatever form it may 

take, cannot be simply seen as physical and 

tangible contributions from the community.  

 

In Vietnam, participation is particularly referred 

to by the government as “people’s 

participation”, particularly since the 

promulgation of Doi Moi (reform) policy in 

1986. The aim of the reform was to review the 

experiences of development in the past and 

learn from the serious shortcomings the country 

had encountered in its 21 years’ 

experimentation of collectivisation and 

communisation of agricultural production in the 

North (1959 – 1980). It also aimed to examine 

the consequences of rapid collectivisation in the 

South after reunification in 1975 and 

mismanagement of the State (Boothroyd 2000), 

so that new efforts could be initiated to 

accelerate “economic growth linked closely 

with social progress and equity, cultural 

development and environmental protection” 

(Government of Vietnam 1991). Since 1986, 

participation has been further bolstered by 

foreign funded development projects in the 

country. These projects aimed to promote local 

participation, particularly regarding it as pre-

requisite for the success and sustainability of the 

projects. In spite of its recent popularity, other 

than exclusive reports from NGOs
2
 and personal 

anecdotes, participation has not been examined 

systematically and critically especially in terms 

of its relevance and acceptance by the intended 

beneficiaries in development projects. Whether 

participation could actually improve 

effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of 

development projects, or whether it actually has 

further strengthened local ownership of the 

project, given extra incentive to its people for 

                                                 
2
 Non-governmental organization 

mobilising their own resources and commitment 

to make decisions for its own future also 

remains uncertain. In this context, an empirical 

and critical examination of people’s 

participation in development projects seems to 

be both timely and urgent.  

 

Here, this article proposes to investigate a 

Danish funded project on RWSS in Daklak 

province in Vietnam with special focus on two 

villages in Nam Dong commune, Cu Jut district, 

one of the three pilot districts chosen to have 

such a project implemented. A critical study of 

the project hopefully demonstrates how 

participation has been practiced and perceived 

by different related stakeholders and the insights 

gained from such observations in the province 

may perhaps be most valuable in assessing 

participation and its contribution in other 

development projects elsewhere in the nation. 

 

Aim and objectives of the study  

This study examines how the concept of 

participation is being practiced in Vietnam, 

using a case study of the RWSS project in 

Daklak with special emphasis on investigating 

how the villagers in the study areas perceive, 

expect, and ultimately practice participation in 

the course of working with the project. 

Furthermore, it will highlight the degree of 

participation among the major stakeholders. 

This includes how they evaluate the 

effectiveness and relevance of participation in 

their project, particularly in terms of the benefits 

they consider to be most significant. 

 

In this study, a set of research questions was 

prepared: 

1. How is participation or the participatory 

approach understood and exercised by the 

personnel and stakeholders in the project? 

2. How do local villagers in the project 

areas perceptive and interpret the meaning of 

participation? What are their expectations? 

3. How are people in the villages included 

in the process of participation? Specially, in 

what type of activity and at what stage of the 

project are they called to participate? 

4. In what capacity do local villagers 

participate in the project? As informants or 

knowledge contributors or decision makers? 



Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 422-446. 

424 
 

How do local people evaluate their experience 

with participation? How do they assess the 

eventual outcomes? 

 

Participation: 

 

A Literature Review 

 

Meaning of Participation 

There is little doubt that “participation” has 

become a term entrenched in development 

studies. After continuous efforts in promoting 

the concept as a set of principles for planning 

and implementing inclusive development for 

more than a decade, participation is no longer 

considered something entirely novel to most 

development practitioners and beneficiaries in 

the Western world. However, its trajectories to 

common acceptance have not always been 

smooth. 

  

Although development assistance was offered to 

Third World nations, it was not until the 1960s 

that planners considered it made sense to enable 

local villagers to have involvement with 

projects. However, what they meant by 

involvement was only encouraging a greater 

number of villagers to take part in a project that 

had already been designed for them. In other 

words, although participation was promoted, 

local people were still denied an opportunity to 

have their say in decisions that would affect 

their lives. Nor had they been offered the option 

to articulate their needs and priorities which 

they knew better than anyone else. 

 

Since then, however, the concept of 

participation has been continuously moulded 

and remoulded. In 1973, ECLA, for example, 

considered participation as the outcome of the 

involvement of the targeted beneficiaries of a 

development project as well as the contributions 

they made. In this context, the targeted 

beneficiaries were not expected to have any role 

in shaping or defining the project objectives or 

its agenda and design. Participation at the time 

was only to make local people feel good, so that 

they would take part in the development 

activities already in place for them (Pateman 

1970). Cohen and Uphoff (1977) argued that 

participation should include local members in 

the decision-making processes as well as in the 

evaluation of the outcomes of a project whereby 

they not only could make contributions, but also 

be embraced by the project and empowered by 

it. In this regard, Pearse and Stiefel (1979) made 

it clear that participation should involve 

organising targeted beneficiaries of the 

development project to increase their control 

over resources from which they had hitherto 

been excluded. Richardson (1983) proposed that 

participation should be about the ways in which 

ordinary people should take part in the 

formulation and implementation of a social 

policy and decision. According to him, there are 

two forms of participation-direct and indirect. 

What characterised the former was the attempt 

made by locals to influence the course of 

government policy in a face-to-face manner. 

The latter, in contrast, involved no face-to-face 

interaction, nor any attempt to take action 

influencing government decisions. It is 

important that intended beneficiaries should be 

in an appropriate position to influence the 

direction and implementation of a development 

project with a view to enhancing their existing 

well-being particularly with regard to income, 

personal growth, self-reliance and/or other 

values that they cherished (Paul 1987). 

According to OECD (1994), it is important that 

partnership upon the basis of open dialogue 

among the various actors be built and local 

views and indigenous knowledge be 

deliberately sought and respected in 

development.   

 

By far the most influential figure in pushing 

participation in a new direction was Illich 

(1983), who argued strongly that participation 

should be a process of de-professionalization in 

all domains of life. In his view, development 

practitioners should not be seen as the only 

people who were knowledgeable and that the 

locals were ignorant and incapable. He stressed 

that local knowledge and experience were even 

more important for the success and 

sustainability. For this reason, development 

practitioners should not consider local 

participation as a process of handing over the 

stakes to their target audiences, but as a process 

through which future beneficiaries can fully get 

involved in making plans, contribute to the 

design and more importantly to decision-

making processes (Illich 1983 in Chamber 

1997). In some ways, this coincided with the 

broader changes in the philosophy of 



Participation in Development: A Case Study..... 

425 
 

governance of the time. Specially, some 

researchers had argued that there was a strong 

connection between participation and 

decentralisation or empowerment. According to 

Rondinelli (1981), for example, decentralising 

administration from a single centre and 

conferring power to local government would 

encourage people’s active participation in 

cultural, social, economic and political activities 

in their communities. Faguet (1997) agreed that 

decentralisation promoted political equality, 

accountability, responsiveness, a sense of 

ownership and, in turn, efficiency and 

effectiveness. Thus, decentralisation could 

become a renovated structure for improving 

democracy and participation.  

 

Barriers to Participation 

Oakley’s (1991) pointed out three main barriers 

that could heavily hinder participation: 

structural, administrative, and social obstacles. 

First and foremost, participation could be 

heavily influenced by the political environment 

within the country it was promoted. He further 

stressed that where the prevailing political 

ideology does not encourage openness for 

public consultation and prefers to maintain a 

highly centralised political system, it is more 

likely that participation would face serious 

obstacles as the political environment frustrates 

rather than encourages participation. He called 

these structural obstacles, which tend to 

maintain the status quo and prevent people from 

developing an awareness of their rights that they 

are entitled for participation. Structural barriers 

are more likely to be found in a centrally 

planned political environment as its planned 

goals are usually hard to change, and leave little 

room for the more spontaneous development 

initiatives that usually come from local 

communities. He further argued that barriers to 

participation are not limited to governments and 

administrative structures. They could also be 

found in people’s mentality of dependence, 

especially in cases where people have become 

overly dependent on the government to make 

decisions for them, their own confidence in and 

capacity for making their own decisions, and 

organising and developing their own initiatives 

would also be weakened. There are, however, 

other social obstacles for participation, among 

which gender emerges as an important one. For 

a long time, the place of women was 

traditionally defined to stay within the 

household, performing housework. This gender 

barrier obviously denies women any 

opportunity to participate in socio-economic 

development activities.  

 

Advantages of participation 

Uphoff (1986b) pointed out a number of 

advantages associated with participation. First, 

one would gain more accurate information on 

the needs, priorities and capacities of the local 

community through their participation, and 

these elements could be essential for the success 

of projects. Second, participation could also 

provide more efficient ways to allocate limited 

resources to better meet local needs. Castillo 

(1983) insisted that top-down strategies have 

proved to make little impact upon poverty 

alleviation, whereas a participatory approach 

could be more helpful, especially community 

members were generally resourceful and 

knowledgeable rather than ignorant and 

apathetic as commonly stereotyped. Oakley 

(1991) concluded that participation could 

contribute most to five key aspects in 

development projects - efficiency, effectiveness, 

self-reliance, coverage and sustainability. He 

argued that participation not only allowed local 

people to be involved in determining the 

objectives and priorities of a project, but also in 

making plans and decisions. Through this 

process, indigenous knowledge, experience and 

resources could then be fully and effectively 

utilised. Therefore, participation would also 

provide local people with an opportunity to 

break away from their dependence on external 

assistance in providing solutions to their 

problems. As a result, they would also develop 

confidence in their own capacity and become 

self-reliant in the future. In turn, participation 

would further bring local community a greater 

sense of control of their own destiny as well as 

the pride of being independent, bringing an end 

to their feeling of being isolated and their 

possible mentality of dependence. 

 

Principles of practicing participation 

In order to ensure the success of participation in 

development projects, Oakley (1991) proposed 

three major principles for practice - the primacy 

of people, people’s knowledge, and inclusion of 

women. Specifically, he maintained that as 

development is more a humanising process, all 



Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 422-446. 

426 
 

development projects must first be oriented to 

local people, their interests, needs and priorities. 

This means that the projects should not simply 

focus on people as objects of change, but rather 

as subjects of development. As objects of 

change, local people would remain passive 

actors in that they would only perform what 

they were told to do instead of taking their own 

initiatives for change. Sethi (1987,:52) rightly 

observed, “conventional modes of development, 

explicitly or implicitly, always treat local people 

as an object of change and the relation between 

the development agent and the people 

themselves often takes the form of a subject 

acting upon an object; the outcome is a delivery 

approach – that is, an attempt to bring 

development to people through deliveries of 

knowledge and resources from outside”. 

Further, it is recommended that the long-term 

objective of promoting local participation is to 

improve the locals’ capacity, leadership, 

organizational skills, a sense of ownership and 

responsibility in the projects. To do so, a 

number of principles should be borne in mind. 

The first principle is the inclusion of all people 

that will be affected by the decisions, policies or 

a project. Attention should also be given to 

ensure equal partnership among the 

participants. Recognition of indigenous 

knowledge, capacity and equal rights of every 

participant, regardless of their social 

backgrounds, will be important as it will help 

the projects explore and fully utilise local 

resources. This has been neglected in the past 

projects that promoted a top-down approach 

(Borda 1987). Transparency is another 

important principle. To achieve this, an 

environment conducive to open communication 

and building dialogue should be created. 

Sharing power combined with sharing 

responsibility is another important element. The 

purpose is to avoid possible conflicts that may 

occur among stakeholders as a result of uneven 

division of power and also to make sure that all 

stakeholders have equal responsibility for the 

decisions that are made and each should have a 

clear mandate for implementing those decisions. 

Empowerment is another important principle. 

The purpose is to promote mutual learning and 

empowerment. Cooperation is the last point that 

should attract due attention. It helps to share 

every participant’s strength and reduce their 

weaknesses (Sethi, 1987).  

Women and Participation 

Historically, the struggle for gender equality can 

be traced to the early stages of the inception of 

the United Nations in 1945 when only 30 out of 

51 member states, allowed “women’s equal 

voting rights with men or permitted them to 

hold public office”. At that time, not much 

progress was achieved. However, the struggle 

did not come to a deadlock but continued and 

led to a number of steps considered as important 

marks in achieving better gender equality as it 

had attracted special attention of many more 

nations. At this stage, international efforts were 

given to achieve codification of women’s legal 

and civic rights, acknowledging that law itself 

was not enough to ensure equal rights for 

women. This therefore led the struggle to the 

second phase with convening of the number of 

international congresses on gender equality in 

decision making e.g. the Open Dialogue in 

Mexico in 1975, the conference in Copenhagen 

in 1980, in Nairobi in 1985 and in Beijing in 

1995 etc. Impressive progress has been 

achieved in recent decades (Kongolo and 

Bamgose 2002). As a result, social perception 

of women as merely a house lady has also 

gradually disappeared as a result of socio-

economic developments as well as the 

increasing requirements of life quality between 

women and men (Bui. 2003 in Barry. 2003). 

This could be seen as an important step marking 

a sharp change in ideology. However, one can 

still see that today, women especially women in 

rural areas, remain consistently neglected and 

forgotten by policy and decision makers. Their 

inclusion in development projects is rare. This 

becomes rarer in such a society as Vietnam, 

where people were heavily influenced by 

Confucianism, which stated that men were 

always superior to women (Barry. K 1996) and 

women considered to belong to the weak side 

are not suitable for working outside. However, 

nowadays, this conception has changed. As a 

result, women have gained a greater 

representation in society. An increasing higher 

proportion of women’s representation at various 

levels is also seen. However, further 

improvements still need to be made, particularly 

in political systems, as presently women’s 

representation in political organisations remains 

very limited. 



Participation in Development: A Case Study..... 

427 
 

Although conditions of freedom, initiative and 

creativeness have been expanded for everyone 

in recent decades, women, particularly rural and 

ethnic minority women, are still marginalised. 

Part of the reason for the marginalisation is that 

they feel inadequately prepared and unable to 

catch up with increasing requirements and 

demands that society is posing. Further 

limitations in narrowing the gender gap still 

emerge. One of the limitations encountered is 

the social attitude, not only in men but also in 

the women themselves, toward women’s role. 

To change this, there is a need for persistent 

efforts in education and affirmative activities, so 

that they can build self-confidence, the capacity 

and necessary skills to make better contributions 

to the development of their own communities.   

 

At this point, it is appropriate to add that the 

Constitution of the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam clearly states that “Male and female 

citizens have equal rights in all aspects of 

political, economic, cultural, social and family 

life”. As an attempt to turn the constitutional 

stipulations into practice, in 2002 the 

Government of Vietnam issued a National 

Gender Strategy and Action Plan for the 

Advancement of Women. In November 2003, a 

Gender Strategy in agriculture and rural 

development to the year 2010 was also 

published. The overall ideology of these 

strategies are to achieve gender equality and 

raise the status of rural women, thus achieving a 

higher level of agricultural and rural 

development in the period of industrialization 

and modernization of agriculture.  

 

The research site 

The research was conducted in Nam Dong 

commune of Cu Jut District in Daklak province 

in Vietnam. The commune had 13,990 people 

living in sixteen villages. It was the first 

commune in the district chosen to have the 

piped water schemes constructed under this 

project for its local characteristics such as high 

local need, a chronic scarcity of water, and 

diversity in ethnicity etc. However, due to 

limited resources, this research was only limited 

to Village one and Village two, where two 

piped schemes were already installed. 

 

Table 1: Basic information on research sites 

Village 

Total 

househol

d 

Total 

populatio

n 

Ethnicity 

% of 

access to 

water and 

sanitation 

Income 

(VND)/m 

% of 

participation 

in water 

supply and 

sanitation 

Village 1 184 920 30% 10 
150.000 to 

200.000 
60% 

Village 2 201 1005 56% 10 
120,000-

170,000 
30% 

Available reports indicated that only half of the households owned dug wells, which run dry six months of the 

year. It was common for many households to share one well.  

 

As far as water quality was concerned, the 

reports showed that 60% to 70% of ground 

water was contaminated with pesticides and 

chemical fertilizers. Many were constructed too 

near to latrines or animal sheds. Furthermore, 

percentage of people affected with water borne 

and sanitation related diseases like diarrhoea, 

worms, and red eye has increased as a result of 

using poor quality water keep increasing. A 

greater concern was the incidence of 

reproductive and urinary tract infections among 

women. The reports also indicated that more 

than two thirds of the households in these 

villages did not have access to hygienic latrines.   

 

For local participation in the schemes, 

according to a project officer, most of the 

villagers had some reservations about the 

project as they fear that it might not be 

successful, and that they would lose money and 

time. Their fear was understandable because 

there had been several projects implemented in 

these communities without success. 

Additionally, many of the households could not 



Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 422-446. 

428 
 

afford the contributions required to participate 

in the project. 

 

Research design & sampling  
 

For this research, due to time and resource 

constraints, only 25 people from different social 

backgrounds were invited to participate as key 

informants who are categorised into three 

groups: group one consisted of ordinary 

villagers; group two consisted of project 

personnel; group three was made up of local 

authority leaders and project administrators. The 

researcher is aware that a small heterogeneous 

sample might not able to reflect correctly the 

issue under study, as it would make it hard to 

generalise the eventual findings of the research 

(Patton, 1990). Still, the researcher believed that 

given the different backgrounds the informants 

had, they would be the most helpful in 

providing a general impression, if not a 

definitive generalisation of, the different views 

people had about participation in local 

communities in this part of Vietnam, which in 

turn would suffice in an exploratory study.  

20 out of 25 key informants are direct 

beneficiaries of the piped schemes, one is a 

representative of Nam Dong PPC
3
, two are 

piped scheme managers and two are project 

personnel at the provincial level. The direct 

beneficiaries in this research were ordinary 

villagers of different ethnicities who took part in 

constructing work for the piped schemes. These 

twenty beneficiaries – ten from each village – 

were selected at random. Apart from these, a 

representative of the CPC
4
, piped scheme 

managers and villager leaders were invited to 

participate in the research as a key informant.  

Of the selected informants, more than a half is 

women who are the most regular users of the 

scheme. The researcher believed that they had 

the most thorough of understanding about the 

scheme in terms of how they had been 

constructed and operated than other members in 

the family etc.  

 

Method of data collection  

In this research, qualitative approach using in-

depth interview was chosen as the major 

                                                 
3
 Province People’s Committee  

4
 Commune People’s Committee 

information collecting method for its suitability 

for exploratory study. This method is usually 

adopted in exploratory researches where the 

researcher is attempting to gain understanding 

of the field of study and to develop theories 

rather than test them. For Taylor and Bogdan 

(1984, p.77), in-depth interviewing is “repeated 

face-to-face encounters between the researcher 

and informants directed toward understanding 

informants’ perspectives on their lives, 

experiences or situations as expressed in their 

own words”. For this research, note-taking 

combined with tape recording. For the former, 

an advantage was that it promoted the 

researcher to review and analyse his notes and 

interpretations as soon as the interview was 

completed when his impressions were still 

fresh. More importantly, he was also made to 

pay closer attention to non-verbal language and 

nuances of the informants during the interview. 

For the latter, many informants indicated some 

reluctance and uneasiness for fear that their 

responses might be used against them later.         

 

Data analysis 

For this research, data collected was first 

reviewed before all interviews were grouped 

together to identify if themes and narratives 

emerged that would warrant closer analysis. The 

researcher then examined the collected raw data 

to search for themes that were closely 

associated with the foci of the research by going 

through all the interview questions and the 

responses. After this step, he analysed and 

interpreted the data by using the major 

themes/concepts that emerged. 

 

Research findings 
 

Main research questions and perceptions of 

key informants 

The information collected from a total of 

twenty-five informants reveal three main 

perceptions of the meaning of participation. 

Approximately two thirds of informants of 

group one in Village Two considered 

participation as physical contributions of target 

audiences in the construction of the schemes. As 

one male informant said:  

Participation means participating in meetings, 

digging channels to prepare for installing the 



Participation in Development: A Case Study..... 

429 
 

pipes and contributing money to constructing 

the scheme. 

Another female informant also shared the same 

view, saying: 

Participation means participating in 

implementing project’s activities that we are 

requested to, for example, digging the channels, 

attending meetings and contributing money to 

setting up the scheme.  

In this context, it is clear that for this group 

participation was understood simply as a 

process through which prospective beneficiaries 

could make contributions to a project. This 

group did not see participation as a means to 

achieve democracy or sustainability, but merely 

as a means to gain a physical access to clean 

water for daily consumption. Furthermore, there 

was no clear link for these people between their 

participation and the democracy and 

sustainability of the scheme. As one informant 

said: 

We do not care how much we participate in the 

project nor if we can make a decision for our 

own. What we care is when and how to access 

clean water at a reasonable price. We do not 

understand what is meant by sustainability, it is 

so vague to us.  

 

Field observations showed two main reasons 

that this perception may have developed. The 

main reason was that the meaning of 

participation was not clearly communicated to 

this group. Consequently, members of this 

group were not equipped with necessary 

knowledge about participation, or its close link 

with the scheme’s sustainability. Though the 

project organised a number of community 

consultations and short training courses which 

aimed to equip prospective users with 

information in relation to the project, and the 

approach it would introduce, the courses and 

consultations did not meet local needs. One 

informant said: 

We were invited to consultations and training 

courses. We really liked it as there we could 

discuss the scheme and were taught about the 

approach. However, the courses were too short 

for us to understand everything in detail.  

This indicates that the main cause of deficient 

understanding of the meaning of participation in 

this group resulted from insufficient 

communication between the project and its 

target audiences. While IEC activities were 

almost entirely neglected, the project seemed to 

concentrate all of its resources on building a 

physical scheme as soon as possible. This was 

done so that the scheme could be duplicated in 

surrounding areas as soon as possible. In other 

words, the fact that the project focussed on 

setting up physical structures led to the neglect 

of IEC activities that were specifically intended 

to explain the project to the villagers. 

Consequently, the villagers were not sufficiently 

prepared to participate in the project. As a 

result, many of the users lost interest in the 

scheme. One of the main reasons, according to 

them, was that the scheme did not supply the 

quality of water they had expected. Moreover, 

the water tariff that was applied was not 

affordable. One said: 

We initially thought that water would be used 

for free or at a very cheap price. Now it turned 

out that is so expensive and unaffordable to us. 

  

This again indicates that members of this group 

did not have adequate knowledge about the 

project. In short, they were not given enough 

opportunities to discuss details relating to the 

scheme. Nor did they have the right to make a 

decision on their own, though they invested 

money in the scheme.  

The field study also revealed that the project did 

not conduct an adequate assessment of its 

perspective users’ financial capacity, or their 

willingness to pay for water, before setting up 

the scheme. Information contained in the 

project’s PRA reports was not reflective of 

villager’s financial status or their willingness to 

pay. It is necessary to add that the PRA reports 

were not conducted by professionals or 

experienced personnel. Furthermore, upon 

completion, these reports were not used as an 

important source of reference, but were shelved. 

It was not surprising then that the villagers were 

ignorant of the meaning of participation. It is 

also not surprising that the outcomes of the 

project turned out to be different to their initial 

expectations.  

 

Another major issue with this project stems 

from a long tradition in Vietnam. That is the 

tendency of common people to leave it to 



Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 422-446. 

430 
 

others, particularly the elite, to decide 

everything for them. They did this conscious of 

the fact that the decisions of others would affect 

their lives. One of the informants stated: 

 

Well, let the Government decide everything and 

we will follow. We do not know what to do. It 

is better to let it be decided by the Government 

and let us know what we have to contribute.  

 

On the other hand, the other one-third of the 

informants from this group described 

participation as the full involvement of locals in 

all stages of a project. One male informant, who 

was also a secondary school teacher, stated that: 

Participation does not simply mean participating 

in carrying out activities in relation to the 

scheme, but also means that we, the prospective 

beneficiaries, have the right to discuss and make 

a decision on the scheme related issues.  

 

This perception of participation is supported by 

Pateman (1970), who stated that participation 

should be considered as a process in which each 

individual member of the policy and decision-

making body has equal power in the outcomes 

of the decision or policy. Another informant, 

who was a village motivator in the project, said: 

Participation is more than making physical 

contribution. But it also gives us a chance to 

express our opinions freely. Our sense of 

responsibility and ownership is built and we 

will be the owners of the scheme later.  

 

It was apparent that for these informants, 

participation really conveyed a different 

message. To these people participation was 

considered important in ensuring sustainability 

and democracy. Although democracy is a 

worthy goal of any project, it is extremely 

broad, and must be pursued separately (White 

1981). The major reason behind such a 

difference in the perception of the meaning of 

participation between villagers in this group was 

the lack of clarity of information distributed by 

the project.  

We have already seen how IEC activities in the 

project were not prioritised; this resulted in 

misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the 

approach among villagers in Village Two. The 

damage done by the lack of communication was 

highlighted by the fact that the villagers who 

described participation more adequately had 

received more information and training from the 

project. The respondents from the third of the 

villagers who responded more adequately 

tended to come from organisations with whom 

the project worked, or from local schools, which 

had been a focus of project activities. It is 

apparent that the more information people 

received about the approach, the more they 

understood about its implications. 

  

 

It was unfortunate that this project did not give 

sufficient attention to communication with the 

villagers. Even worse, locals were perceived as 

outsiders, and merely as recipients of the 

project’s outcomes. Their local experience and 

knowledge were not utilised by the project. As 

one person from group two (project personnel) 

said: 

 

Having local involvement is time consuming 

and it will slow down the project progress 

because they are not knowledgeable about the 

project and its approach. We’d better do 

everything. 

 

The villagers’ marginalisation in this project 

may have been because project personnel 

underestimated local capacity and knowledge. 

This kind of attitude toward local inputs is not 

new in development. White (1981) said that in 

practice a great change in the attitudes of 

participation practitioners in many fields toward 

the value of local knowledge and skills needed 

to be made. It needed to become generally 

accepted that local knowledge was a useful 

resource, and could be well adapted to local 

circumstances. However, local inputs are still 

disregarded in development projects. As a 

result, intended users, who were more 

knowledgeable about local conditions and 

priorities than anyone else, were not invited to 

participate in the project adequately. Nor were 

they given an opportunity to have a say in the 

decision making process. Consequently, many 

of the projects did not solve local problems or 

meet local demands. The project in Village Two 

is no exception. According to many villagers, 

the scheme did not function to their satisfaction 

financially, or in terms of water quality.  



Participation in Development: A Case Study..... 

431 
 

Respondents belonging to group one in Village 

One, where the scheme was installed after 

Village Two, had a more positive opinion of the 

project and of participation in general. One of 

the main reasons for this difference was the fact 

the experiences from Village Two were taken 

into account during the implementation of the 

project in Village One. Participation was 

perceived by respondents from Village One as 

more than merely physical contributions. (As 

many respondents from Village Two stated it 

was.) One of the informants said:   

Participation gives us a chance to express our 

own ideas. We really feel happy about that. It is 

very democratic indeed. I assume that it is 

necessary because it is our own scheme.  

 

In this context, participation was apparently 

understood as a required means, not as an end, 

to achieve sustainability and democracy in 

water supply. They also realised that there is a 

close link between participation, sustainability, 

and democracy. Another informant added that:   

Previously, there have been some projects 

working in the community, for example the 

electricity and irrigation projects, but they did 

not work satisfactorily. The company sent their 

people down here and let them work without a 

close technical supervision. We were not invited 

to get engaged in any single stage of the project 

nor were we given a chance to contribute our 

local experience and ideas, but in this project 

we can raise our opinions, and more importantly 

we can decide things.  

This highlights the fact that prospective users 

were always willing to participate and share 

their local knowledge and experience as long as 

they were given an appropriate opportunity. 

Having a chance to express their own opinions, 

in their own words, meant a lot to local people. 

They felt that their voice was heard, and that 

their local knowledge was utilised in the project. 

More importantly, their ideas were seriously 

considered when decisions were made. By 

getting involved in decision-making, locals 

became more responsible for the project 

outcomes. This sense of responsibility helped to 

protect those outcomes later. White (1981) 

stated that when prospective users take an active 

part in project activities like planning and 

implementation, they collectively consider the 

completed scheme as their own. Furthermore, 

they feel proud of the scheme and feel 

responsible for it. They therefore use it more, 

use it more carefully, and do their best to 

maintain it. One of the informants said, proudly, 

that:  

We are very happy with the scheme now. The 

water quality is so good. We will not allow any 

damage to the scheme. We will protect it at all 

costs for our use. 

This again points to the sense of ownership and 

responsibility that can only be formed when 

prospective users have input into decisions that 

will affect their lives. These informants also saw 

a close link between participation and 

sustainability. They also realised that their local 

experience and knowledge were important for 

the projects, as they understood more the local 

situation and needs better than anyone else.  

 

One might wonder why there was such a big 

gap in the meaning of participation between 

villagers in the two villages. There are a number 

of possibilities. One widely recognised reason 

was that in Village One, attention was given to 

carrying out IEC activities. More community 

consultations and training courses were held. 

The prospective users were given the right to 

discuss, plan, and make decisions on whether or 

not to install the scheme, as well as how and 

where to install it. Another important point was 

that the administrator in this village was more 

active and educated than that in Village Two. 

Moreover, lessons learned from the 

implementation in Village Two were taken into 

account during the implementation of the 

project in Village One. That meant instead of 

just focusing on creating a tangible product, 

much of the project’s attention was given to IEC 

activities. A noticeable difference in Village 

One was that IEC activities had been conducted 

long before the real implementation of the 

project. One extremely important component of 

the IEC activities was a careful assessment of 

local needs, the affordability of the scheme, as 

well as willingness to pay for water. This 

assessment was conducted with support from an 

international IEC specialist before construction 

was commenced.  

In summary, data assembled showed that the 

scheme in Village Two was not implemented in 



Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 422-446. 

432 
 

a participatory manner, as the users here merely 

got involved in assisting with the 

implementation of the program once decisions 

and plans had already been made. They were 

passive recipients of development services more 

than development initiators. This is despite the 

fact that they were called on to participate in a 

number of activities. Because of passive 

participation, many of them seemed to lose 

interest in the scheme and did not know how the 

scheme was constructed or operated.  

The situation in Village One was different from 

Village Two, where data showed that the users 

were highly interested in the scheme, and that 

they considered it their own. It is clear to see 

that the scheme here was implemented in a 

totally participatory manner, as everything in 

relation to the scheme, from making plans, to 

discussing water tariffs, to physical 

construction, was discussed and decided by the 

users themselves. This process was 

accomplished with technical assistance and 

support from the project’s technical staff. White 

(1981) considered this type of participation as 

the most usual situation encountered in practice.  

Data revealed that there was a gap that needed 

to be bridged in terms of the understanding and 

interpretation of the meaning of the 

participatory approach among the project staff. 

There were many different opinions on the 

meaning of participation, including those of 

staff members who worked directly with the 

public. Some staff simply interpreted 

participation as informing the target audience of 

the project’s plan. Furthermore, full promotion 

of participation was not done because the 

process required to develop participation was 

considered time too consuming and impractical. 

As one staff member said: 

We are working in participatory manner as said 

in the strategy. The villagers are called for to 

participate in implementing the project’s 

activities. We furthermore frequently keep them 

informed of the project’s situation. It is hard to 

involve the locals in all activities, because many 

of them are incapable of taking initiatives and 

implementing activities without the project 

assistance. It would slow down the project 

progress.    

It is clear that participation in this project was 

interpreted improperly not only by ordinary 

villagers, but also by the staff themselves. This 

is particularly troubling because these same 

staff members considered themselves 

specialists. In some cases, participation was 

seen as an obstacle that prevented the project 

from progressing. This indicates that the 

project’s main concern was how to keep 

progress up while paying little or no attention to 

the sustainability of the development. One of 

the primary ways to ensure sustainability is to 

build local capacity. Because local villagers 

were perceived to be ignorant and incapable, 

they were marginalised. This marginalisation 

led to a belief that their participation in the 

project would be a hindrance to the project. As a 

result, they did not participate in a meaningful 

way in the project. This meant that at the end of 

the project the villagers did not feel the scheme 

was theirs, or even feel particularly attached to 

it.  

Another staff member revealed that the project 

was under pressure to deliver tangible products, 

even at the cost of non-tangible ones. 

Apparently the higher ups from the 

organisations involved in the project wanted to 

see as many tangible results as possible. This 

may have been why project staff proceeded 

without gaining local participation in favour of 

creating a tangible result quickly. That pressure 

may have also contributed to the feeling by 

some staff members that local participation 

would slow the project down too much. It is 

possible to believe that the upper levels of the 

organisation were demanding results in a time 

frame that was too short to foster any 

meaningful local participation. 

Participatory approach exercised in the 

project 

Despite diversity in the understanding, 

definition, and interpretation of the participatory 

approach, a certain consensus has emerged 

among international development organisations. 

The participatory approach, according to this 

definition, should entail three main dimensions: 

the involvement of every individual member 

that will be affected by the decisions made in 

the planning process; the consequent 

implementation of those decisions; and the 

sharing of the benefits (or liabilities) resulting 

from those decisions (World Bank 1978). It 

may have been because of misinterpretation and 

inadequate understanding of the above 



Participation in Development: A Case Study..... 

433 
 

definition that many projects in Vietnam and 

elsewhere have failed to achieve or maintain 

their expected outcomes. The recognition of the 

importance of the participatory approach for 

future development activities that aim to 

achieve sustainability has pushed the 

Government of Vietnam to take action. It has 

prepared itself to ensure that its future 

investments in development projects, 

particularly in the field of RWSS, will not be a 

waste of resources. One of the actions it took 

was the approval by the Prime Minister of 

NRWSSS in 2000. This introduced a radical 

change in terms of the approaches to be adopted 

in all development projects and programs. That 

is, it was made explicit that a participatory was 

to replace heavy, top-down approaches. Under 

NRWSSS, local participation was described as 

seeking full local involvement from the initial 

planning stages and decision making, all the 

way to reaping the benefits of projects. 

  

The RWSS project in Daklak province, which 

was the subject of this article, was an attempt to 

pilot the NRWSSS. The project was 

commenced in early 2001 and was expected to 

be complete by June 2006. However, after five 

years, much remains to be done to see the 

strategy implemented as designed. So far, it 

seems that the project has generally gone off 

track, despite some encouraging results in 

Village One and elsewhere.  

Structurally, the implementation of the project 

generally followed the government’s existing 

top-down structures. This means that 

implementation was undertaken through 

different administrative levels. It seems difficult 

to believe that the strategy was developed at a 

central level but that the provincial level 

officers were responsible for implementing it 

locally. This was despite the fact that the 

strategy’s content was completely novel to the 

province. Moreover, provincial staff members 

were not adequately trained about the approach. 

As a result, a large gap in understanding the 

meaning of the approach emerged among 

project staff, stakeholders, and leaders. These 

gaps led to several issues for the project. One of 

the first and most obvious was the distribution 

of inconsistent information to ordinary 

villagers. Data also showed that the project was 

off track, as it had devoted all of its resources to 

creating tangible structures. IEC activities were, 

for the most part, neglected. Apart from all of 

this, the donor’s role was very limited. This lack 

of involvement meant that the influence of the 

donor was not strong enough to move the 

project back on track. For some reasons, the 

donor also seemed to prefer the setting up of 

physical structures to “soft building” projects. 

This may have been so that the donor could 

show its Danish visitors that the money it had 

spent was well invested. It is worthwhile to add 

that during the last five years, the project 

received visitors from the Danish Embassy and 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs on a regular basis.  

Another problem with the program was the 

interference that using existing government 

channels created for local participation. Part of 

this interference was the fact that a 

concentration was placed on government staff 

rather than locals. Additionally, locals felt 

unable to express their opinions openly when 

government representatives were present.  

Due to limited project resources, the project 

involved social organisations such as the WU, 

the Youth Union, and the Farmer’s Association 

in the implementation of the strategy. This 

inclusion was considered to be an optimal 

solution as it was thought that these 

organisations would participate in the 

dissemination of project related information 

throughout the communities. However, in 

practice, the project received a poor response 

from these social organisations. The 

organisations usually claimed that they were 

busy implementing their own activities. Going a 

little deeper into this, one can see that the main 

reason for such a poor response was the lack of 

a real partnership between the project and these 

organisations. It is hardly fair to expect these 

organisations to devote their limited resources 

to an outside project without some kind of 

remuneration. The only way that it would be 

possible to induce social organisations to 

participate in external projects without some 

type of remuneration would be to create a 

situation whereby part of a social organisation’s 

responsibility would include participation in 

government directed projects. 

Again due to resource limitations, the project 

established an IEC network that was 

responsible, from the top down, for the 



Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 422-446. 

434 
 

provincial, regional, and village level. Members 

of the network were selected from social 

organisations in the province. The objective of 

this network was to disseminate to villagers all 

information related to the project. This included 

training them on the approach. The TOT
5
 model 

was applied, and was the key idea in the 

establishment of the network. However, due to 

the lack of continuous participation by members 

at the provincial level, the training of lower 

level staff was irregular and incomplete. Again, 

the core reason was the lack of an appropriate 

mechanism to stimulate these staff to work 

closely with the project in a regular manner. 

Consequently, staff members at the district, 

commune, and village levels were not 

adequately trained on the approach.    

We have already seen how the project 

prioritised the establishment of physical 

structures while little attention was given to 

building “soft structures”. In this sense, the 

“soft structures” are those which are socially 

based, such as an understanding of participation, 

democratisation, and sustainability. It is critical 

to stress that this process was especially 

highlighted in the strategy. Despite the 

emphasis “soft structures” received in the 

strategy, there was strong evidence that it was 

taken lightly in practice. The neglect of “soft 

structures” led prospective users to a confused 

understanding of the project and the approach 

that it aimed to introduce.  

The project held community consultations and 

training courses to help ordinary villagers gain 

an insight into the approach. However, due to 

internal factors like a large implementation area, 

and external factors like a shortage of 

specialised staff, political pressure for tangible 

products, and competitive environments 

between project sections, these kinds of 

activities were conducted in a perfunctory 

manner. Consequently, many of the villagers, 

especially in Village Two, lost interest in the 

scheme. Partially contributing to this loss of 

interest, and as a result of it was the fact that the 

final outcome of the project was very different 

than the villagers had expected. Some villagers, 

believing they had been cheated, expressed 

                                                 
5
 Training of trainers 

anger and disappointment at the project’s 

outcomes.  

Another major issue was the fact that villagers 

were not called upon to contribute to the 

construction of the project. This was because 

project staff feared that they would lose control 

of the project if villagers were given a role. The 

events that transpired in Village Two are an 

example that further illustrates this. Here, many 

of the activities like planning, design, selection 

of a construction contractor, construction, and 

supervision were not decided locally. 

Prospective users were simply called on to 

make physical contributions like digging 

channels and making monetary payment. Sadly, 

there were many other examples of situations 

where local participation was completely 

neglected or forgotten. Data revealed that this 

was, at least partly, because of the project 

personnel’s faulty understanding of the 

importance of local participation, and a 

concurrent failure to promote it. Additionally, 

the project considered success solely in terms of 

the number of physical schemes installed and 

the amount of money spent every year.  

It is also important to add that the participatory 

approach was not only novel to the locals, but 

also to many of the project personnel, 

commune, and provincial leaders. Data 

indicated that many of the commune and 

provincial level personnel also interpreted local 

involvement simply as physical participation. It 

was therefore not surprising that the approach 

was not effectively implemented. If those who 

are responsible for implementing a project are 

ignorant of its aims, how could we expect 

anything different?  

There is little doubt that many of the personnel, 

including IEC national specialists, understood 

inadequately, and interpreted incorrectly, the 

meaning of the approach. For these people, 

participation was simply understood as 

informing the target audience of the activities 

and plans of the project once they had been 

decided. In their view, the approach was sound 

in theory, but impractical in reality. In practice, 

it was difficult to implement; it took a long time 

and required a significant amount of additional 

resources. As this project worked under a very 

tight time frame, this may have been unrealistic. 

As one staff member said: “facilitating 



Participation in Development: A Case Study..... 

435 
 

participation was difficult and time-

consuming”.  

Moreover, it is difficult to foster participation 

when the local political climate is resistant to 

participation. There were leaders and 

organisations that feared the erosion of their 

power and control if villagers were encouraged 

to take an active role in all the activities of the 

project. This is not a completely surprising 

phenomenon in a politically sensitive 

environment such as Vietnam. Openness and 

the desire for public consultation and feedback 

were still limited. In this regard, Oakley (1991) 

stated that where political ideologies did not 

encourage public participation, but maintained a 

highly centralised political system, it was likely 

that participation would face serious obstacles. 

Therefore, the fear that exercising the 

participatory approach in this project would 

slow it down was, at least, understandable.  

One interesting fact was that the agreement 

between the three provinces indicated that if any 

of the annual budget allocated for a province 

was not spent, the balance would be transferred 

to the other two provinces at the end of the 

fiscal year. This was expected to put some 

pressure on each province to spend the project 

money. While it does do that, it also tends to 

encourage a situation where money must be 

spent, rather than allowing time to adequately 

determine needs and spend money to best effect. 

 

Considering this project in a broader context, of 

the three selected provinces – Ha Tinh, Nghe 

An, and Daklak, Ha Tinh was generally 

considered the one in which the participatory 

approach was best implemented. It is worth 

mentioning though, that this province was 

frequently criticised for its slow progress in the 

development of physical schemes. However, the 

assessments of many national and international 

specialists revealed that this province was 

laying a solid foundation for future development 

because its efforts were concentrated on 

developing “soft” outcomes. In this province, 

physical structures were only established when 

the prospective users fully understood every 

detail about the project and how it related to 

them. Villagers then voluntarily took an active 

role in implementing the project. It is clear that 

villagers would not understand all the details of 

the scheme if they had not been fully involved 

in the project, from initiation, to planning, to 

finalising decisions, to reaping benefits from the 

schemes (White 1981).   

 

Obstacles to local participation in the project 

Data assembled revealed that the promotion of 

the participatory approach in this project 

encountered a number of obstacles. The first 

obstacle encountered in Village Two was due to 

the lack of clarity of information. Villagers were 

not sufficiently communicated about the project 

and its approach. They were also not 

communicated about the mechanisms that 

would be adopted. Data collected also revealed 

that administrators were not active enough to 

handle construction, or deal with problems 

occurring in relation to the scheme.  

 

Secondly, low levels of literacy were an 

obstacle to promoting effective participation in 

this village. Higher proportions of illiteracy 

were seen among ethnic minority villagers. The 

project suffered from a combination of factors 

which made sharing information difficult. The 

project’s communication strategy was not well 

designed for the average villager. At the same 

time, low levels of literacy interfered with the 

ability of ordinary villagers to correctly interpret 

the information.  

Thirdly and perhaps most obviously, was the 

project’s use of a top-down model in which 

attention was devoted to constructing physical 

structures with little concern for participation. 

Although project staff members were fully 

aware that the top-down method was not 

sustainable, they found it easier to adopt than 

the new one. This phenomenon existed not only 

in Village Two, but also elsewhere in the 

project areas. In Village Two, the project’s 

intention was, as quickly as possible, to 

establish a tangible structure to strengthen 

ordinary villager’s belief, and then to duplicate 

it in other areas later. This led to a neglect of 

communication with ordinary villagers.  

The project personnel’s lack of specialised 

knowledge about the approach was also a major 

obstacle that hampered the effective promotion 

of participation in the community.  

The fact that the provincial office was located 

away from the community was another obstacle 

to the general implementation of the project. 



Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 422-446. 

436 
 

Although there was a “District Advisory Office” 

established at district level only three staff was 

based at this office. Furthermore, no clear 

mandate was in place to guide the work of these 

staff. Many people felt that the staff based at the 

district office were based there temporarily, and 

only until somewhere else could be found for 

them. 

Besides the obstacles mentioned above, the 

project encountered a number of general 

obstacles. The cultural and the historical 

characteristics of the Vietnamese, who were 

colonised and dominated for a long period of 

time, and who were taught to listen more than to 

speak, were regarded as a limitation in 

promoting local involvement. 

Moreover, the approach was not only novel to 

project personnel and stakeholders but also to 

ordinary villagers. Although it was developed 

and popular in Western World, it was virtually 

unknown in Vietnam.  

The present political environment in Vietnam in 

general, and in the project areas in particular, 

was not supportive of local participation. We 

have already seen in the literature review how 

participation can be negatively influenced by 

the political environment in which a project is 

implemented. In this case, it is no surprise that 

local participation faced serious obstacles. 

Although ordinary villagers were invited to 

attend community consultations, they tended to 

be very quiet and reserved, particularly in the 

presence of representatives of the local 

authority.  

Furthermore, due to a shortage of specialised 

staff and resources, these consultations and 

discussions were held in a perfunctory manner. 

Some staff argued that creating active 

participation in a development project was too 

hard and time consuming. This argument was at 

least partially true in this instance because of the 

political environment. Some also argued further 

that these obstacles were structural, and 

prevented local people from developing an 

awareness of the rights to which they were 

entitled. These barriers also made it difficult for 

people to access the services they deserved as 

well.  

Despite encouraging socio-economic 

achievements in recent years, Vietnam remains 

a centrally planned country. This is described as 

structural barrier. Centrally planned goals are 

usually hard to change, and leave a very little 

room for spontaneous development initiatives 

that can usually be achieved through local 

community participation (Oakley 1991). This 

description reflected the situation the project 

faced, where prospective users were mobilised 

to participate in carrying out plans already made 

by project. In many cases, the project left almost 

no room for the users to have a say in planning 

or decision-making. It is fair to say that this is, 

at least partially, a consequence of the centrally 

planned environment.  

There were a number of other limitations to the 

promotion of local participation in this project. 

One of these was the locals’ mentality of 

dependence. A villager from in Village Two 

said: 

It is better to leave everything for the 

Government to decide. We cannot do anything. 

Once the decision is made, we will participate 

in implementing it.  

Data collected revealed that the issue of a 

mentality of dependence not only existed among 

villagers in Village Two, but also in Village 

One and elsewhere. Their main fear was that 

they would not be capable to make decisions. A 

secondary fear was that even when they did 

make a decision, it might not be acceptable to 

the government. In their minds, it was better to 

let the government decide everything on their 

behalf. This proves the point that when people 

become overly dependent on the government to 

make decisions for them, their own confidence 

and capacity for decision-making of is 

weakened. In time, they become passive 

recipients. According to Oakley (1991), this is 

particularly commonplace in rural areas in a 

developing country like Vietnam, not only 

because they lack leadership and organizational 

skills, but also because they are made incapable 

of responding to the demands of participation in 

development projects.  

Another limitation encountered in this project 

was related to gender issues. Although much 

progress in gender issues has been made in 

Vietnam since 1950s, particularly since 1986, 

much remains to be done. Special efforts need 

to be made to improve the roles of rural, 

particularly ethnic minority, women in 



Participation in Development: A Case Study..... 

437 
 

development projects. The Doi Moi policy has 

been an important step forward that the 

Government has taken in economic 

development. However, together with the user-

pays principle, it has created economic 

competition which is particularly 

disadvantageous for women. Besides 

participating in new economic and social 

activities women are still expected to fulfil their 

traditional responsibilities such as childcare and 

household duties. Consequently, the equality of 

women in light of this situation has become a 

major issue. 

 

In the project under review, the strategy 

highlighted the gender issues, paying particular 

attention to the role of women in project 

activities. Once again though, in practice, this 

issue was not given due attention. As a result, 

many women, especially those from ethnic 

minorities, were still disadvantaged. They were 

still perceived to be the weaker gender and were 

also seen as incapable of taking a role in 

decision-making or implementation. Their place 

was believed to be at home, doing the 

housework and caring for their children. A 

project staff stated: 

Well, I do not think rural women here are good 

enough to implement activities that we would 

allot them. It is better to invite their husbands. 

Let them stay at home to do the housework. 

It is clear that the notion that women’s place is 

at home doing housework still exists. Because 

of this attitude towards their role, they were not 

encouraged to take an active part in project 

activities. Data revealed that this traditional 

gender ideology guides not only the men, but 

also the women. One woman said about the 

project implementation process: “I have to ask 

my husband, I do not know. I cannot decide.” 

Many women were invited to community 

consultations. However, during these events 

many kept silent from beginning to the end, 

while others sitting in a far corner of the 

meeting room paid no attention, and were 

talking to each other about other things. This 

was observed particularly in consultations 

where men outnumbered women, and when 

local authority representatives were present. 

Women were also found to be very dependent 

on their husbands, particularly in decision-

making. Data collected showed that none of the 

interviewed women could make a decision 

without referring to their husbands.  

In summary, apart from obstacles like low 

literacy, the neglect of IEC activities, a lack of 

specialised professionals to promote the strategy 

and approach, general obstacles related to 

cultural, political, and administrative 

characteristics hampered this project.  

 

Solutions to better participation 

A number of basic problems must be solved 

before this project can create meaningful local 

participation. First and foremost, there is a need 

for continuous IEC activities in the target 

communities, particularly in villages where 

ordinary villagers are encountering difficulties 

resulting from a lack of clarity in 

communication materials. The IEC section of 

the project needs a thorough overhaul: IEC 

activities must become a priority of the project 

along with construction; staff members need to 

be trained to promote the strategy, and the 

approach it aims to introduce; some of the IEC 

messages need to be redesigned to be more 

locally appropriate; and the IEC network, 

particularly at the village level, needs to be 

strengthened and consolidated.  

 

Special attention must be paid to establishing an 

open political environment because the present 

system is not conducive to local participation. 

On the contrary, it hinders local participation, 

making it difficult for local people to express 

their concerns openly. The centrally planned 

system needs to become more decentralised. 

Presently, the government maintains its tight 

control over planning and decision-making 

processes. Because government administrators 

have maintained their grip on planning, local 

people have remained passive recipients rather 

than active initiators of development projects. 

Efforts must be made to diminish cumbersome 

and difficult administrative procedures. A 

simpler and more accessible system should be 

put in place. Otherwise, all efforts made to 

promoting local participation will end in failure. 

This is because locals only take an active part in 

a project when they feel comfortable and free to 

express their opinions.  

Efforts must also be made toward internal 

capacity building. In the context of this project, 

internal capacity is understood as a development 



Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 422-446. 

438 
 

process where locals develop aspects of the 

project’s core skills and capacities. These 

include management, specialised knowledge, 

and leadership. The development of local 

capacity enhances the project’s effectiveness 

and sustainability. Local capacity building is 

also sometimes seen as a process that assists 

individuals or groups to identify and address 

issues while gaining insight, experience, and 

specialised knowledge. This process is normally 

facilitated through the provision of technical 

assistance and training. Unfortunately, in this 

project, there was very little increase in local 

capacity. One of the reasons for the failure in 

fostering participation in this project is 

attributable to the lack of capability of project 

implementers and stakeholders. As we have 

seen many project personnel and stakeholders 

did not possess a correct understanding of the 

approach they were trying to promote. The lack 

of specialised knowledge about the approach on 

the part of those responsible for implementing it 

meant that it fell off the rails relatively quickly. 

The process of improvement should be 

considered as continuous and required 

professional development. However, to fill the 

gaps in knowledge that still exist in the project 

the management must first see the importance 

of participation. Once they have realised the 

importance an effort can be made to address the 

shortcomings of staff, and of project activities. 

A separate budget should be allocated for 

building capacity of staff training, and should be 

included as an important element of the project 

strategy. Although data indicated that the 

project did allocate resources for staff 

development, this training did not address the 

core needs of staff development. The training 

courses were mostly short courses on technical 

issues. 

At present, the project has five people in charge 

of promoting the approach. However, only two 

of them are quite knowledgeable about the 

approach. As we can see, staff members need to 

be knowledgeable about an approach to promote 

it effectively. Thus, it is critical that these staff 

members be trained adequately so they can 

promote the approach. With the present 

resources of the project, it is understandable 

why many local villagers, including project 

officers, did not understand the approach or its 

implementation in practice. 

Efforts must also be made to correct the 

erroneous belief that the production of physical 

infrastructure is the sole criterion upon which 

success of the project can be judged. Project 

personnel and policy planners at the provincial 

and central level must understand that 

promoting the participatory approach is 

extremely important for the sustainability of the 

project outcomes. A serious review of past 

lesson is advisable; it might help explain why 

past projects failed. It might also demonstrate 

how important participation is in maintaining 

project results. It was clear that in this project, 

project management was under considerable 

pressure for tangible products from the upper 

levels. Because of this pressure attention was 

given primarily to the production of physical 

outcomes, and the national strategy was entirely 

neglected. 

Despite remarkable improvements in gender 

equity achieved in recent years, more effort still 

needs to be made to increase women’s roles in 

development. Efforts should be given to 

establishing a legal framework that regulates 

that women can, on one hand, still carry out 

their reproductive responsibilities and on the 

other, participate fully on an equal basis in 

political, economic, cultural and social 

activities, particularly once the nation has 

entered into a new phase of economic 

development, that is, in the industrialization and 

modernization process.  

Without such a framework, women are easily 

marginalized, as they are unable to compete 

with men because the prime “reproductive 

responsibilities” are placed on them. As Barry 

(1996) said, social and family responsibilities 

constitute a heavy burden on their shoulders. 

They lack time to increase any of their 

capacities; of particular importance, women’s 

cultural education and professional training 

have been stunted. It is precisely due to this 

state of affairs that although women are entering 

an era of change when conditions of freedom, 

initiative and creativeness are being expanded 

for everyone, women feel unprepared and 

unable to meet the new demands that the new 

society is posing.  

In the context of this project, women were too 

busy, and too timid to properly participate in 

project activities. Data collected showed that 



Participation in Development: A Case Study..... 

439 
 

they were rarely invited to take part in activities 

in their communities. Their responsibilities were 

felt to be limited to reproduction and household 

work. It was their husbands that were regular 

participants in project activities because both 

men and women believed that women should 

stay at home and let their husbands go. For this 

reason, efforts must be made to bring an end to 

the traditional notion that a woman’s place is at 

home with the children. On the contrary, the 

project should encourage them to equally 

participate in its activities, and also to 

participate in learning opportunities alongside 

men. It is likely that many women may initially 

feel uncomfortable due to fear, and a lack of 

confidence. However, as their confidence and 

capacity are gradually built and strengthened 

through these activities, a sense of comfort will 

emerge. Moreover, women should also be 

helped to realise that they are equally capable, 

and can thus make valuable contributions to the 

project if they participate. Furthermore, it 

should be explained that their participation 

means a lot to the sustainability of the project.  

Of course, to make sure that women would have 

enough time to take an active part in activities 

of the project, it is important that local men 

should be educated to share the housework, so 

that women can have more time to participate in 

the activities. 

Last but not least, efforts must be made to bring 

an end to the mentality of dependence of the 

locals. It was generally hoped by local people 

that the Government would invest in the 

construction of a scheme for them, and what 

they would have to do is to use it. Local people 

must be helped to gain self-confidence, and 

improve their awareness, organisational skills, 

and leadership. This is very important, because 

without these things they cannot take an active 

part in activities of the project. Neither can they 

create initiatives in development for their 

communities after the project has finished. For 

this reason, locals should be encouraged to take 

an active role in the activities of projects in their 

communities. It is also necessary to stress 

though, that special attention should be given to 

creating a politically comfortable environment 

so locals feel able to discuss their concerns, 

needs, and ideas openly. Ideological 

interference from the project, as well as from 

political authority must be avoided at the local 

level. An end must also be brought to the 

erroneous belief on the part of project staff 

members that local people are ignorant or 

incapable of making decisions.  

 

In summary, the issue of how to promote better 

local participation in the project requires a great 

deal of effort from the project, the government, 

and from villagers themselves. Moreover, 

social, political, cultural and administrative 

barriers as mentioned above must be 

demolished. An open environment with simple 

administrative procedures needs to be 

established so that the villagers feel able to 

discuss openly without the fear of political 

consequences later. The project itself might 

need to reconsider whether a reorientation of its 

strategy and goals is needed, as presently its top 

priorities were given to set up as many physical 

structures as possible with very little attention 

being given to building local capacity, self-

confidence, organisational skills, and 

leadership. This is very risky, as evidence has 

shown that sustainability has become an issue in 

schemes where local participation has not 

occurred. 

 

Discussion and Conclusion  
 

Consistent with the literature review given in 

this article, eventual findings of the research in 

this article pointed out that local participation 

involves more than just physical contributions 

or the presence of intended beneficiaries in 

activities of development projects. More 

important than simple participation is the 

involvement of future beneficiaries in planning 

and decision making processes. The findings 

also revealed that simple participation itself 

does not exist in society as a social reality, but 

is a process through which reconstruction by all 

stakeholders involved can be made (Nguyen 

2003). Past projects in Vietnam and elsewhere 

indicated that promoting intended beneficiaries’ 

participation was a good mechanism to help 

ensure the sustainability. However, its 

implementation in practice is not always 

smooth, and it often encounters a great number 

of invisible obstacles. Furthermore, it requires a 

lot of additional resources. Above all, it requires 

strong commitment from the local environment 

within which it is promoted.  



Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 422-446. 

440 
 

This section is devoted to a summary of the 

major findings and observations of this 

research. It demonstrates outcomes brought 

about by the approach and highlights lessons 

learned from the promotion of local 

participation in the project under study. It is 

devoted to a discussion of the practical and 

theoretical implications of this research.  

 

Summary of research findings 

The focus of this research was an examination 

of the perceptions of local villagers and other 

stakeholders of the participatory approach in a 

Danish funded RWSS project in the Daklak 

province in Vietnam. Special attention is also 

given to offering an account of how the 

approach is implemented, and obstacles that 

may hamper the approach.   

 

Local situation 

As mentioned previously, the project was 

implemented in three rural districts in the 

Daklak province where there is diversity of 

culture, ethnicity, economics, and socio-

political features. This research, however, is 

limited to two villages in one single district - Cu 

Jut district.  

 

The culture of this area is characterised by a 

rich variance, made up of more than forty 

different ethnic groups, each with its own 

distinctive identity. In terms of ethnicity, all the 

groups, including the Kinh majority, live in 

harmony together. However, one can find 

differences between ethnic groups in their 

relationships, particularly with the local 

government. The ethnic minorities are still 

facing marginalisation. This is despite the fact 

that they have been given special priority by the 

government in recent years. Their involvement 

in the projects in general, and in this project in 

particular, has increased. There is still some 

complexity to be seen in social interaction 

among the ethnic groups, particularly with the 

Kinh. There are groups that are more vulnerable 

than others. A special feature possessed by these 

ethnic groups is their strong cohesion and high 

level of homogeneity. 

 

With regard to economic development, the 

communities are primarily dependent upon 

agriculture. Short-term crops such as wet rice, 

beans, and maize are the main income source. 

The findings indicated that the communities are 

heavily dependent upon the government in 

terms of policy-making and resource allocation. 

It is fair to say that the political environment is 

not conducive to local participation. Local 

initiative for development within communities 

is not highly encouraged, but is heavily 

influenced by local stakeholders, including the 

local authority. It is understandable in this case 

why these communities lack capacity and the 

skills to turn their initiative into practice. It is 

unfair to conclude that the shortage of 

community capacity and skills results solely 

from marginalisation. There are other reasons, 

one of which is a high level of illiteracy, 

including the lack of proficiency of the national 

language. Another reason is the lack openness 

of the local government and its cumbersome 

administrative procedures.  

 

Solutions that create a better relationship 

between local communities and the government 

must be worked out to ensure that local 

participation is effectively promoted. A more 

open political environment, including the 

abolishtion of current cumbersome 

administrative procedures, and establishment of 

new ones that are simpler and more accessible, 

should be in place to stimulate local initiatives. 

Furthermore, local capacity must be built to 

ensure that there is sufficient local capability to 

turn initiatives into practice. All of these issues 

have significant implications for promoting 

participation within the project.  

 

Perceptions of participation 

As described previously, participation is 

perceived quite differently among the people 

participating in the project. In general, it can be 

concluded that participation is perceived simply 

as physical contributions from intended 

beneficiaries to the project. These physical 

contributions take place without any input in the 

decisions involved in the formulation of the 

project, how the project will be implemented, or 

by whom. The intended beneficiaries were 

frequently denied the opportunity to express 

their opinions, needs, and priorities even though 

community consultations were held. 

 

Only a very small number of people interviewed 

believed that participation involved more than 

just physical contributions. To these people, it 



Participation in Development: A Case Study..... 

441 
 

involved local participation in discussion and 

decision-making processes. This notion is 

supported by Cohen and Uphoff (1977), who 

defined participation as the inclusion of 

community members in planning and decision-

making processes.  

The reasons leading to such differences in the 

perceptions of the meaning of participation 

among informants in the project is rooted in the 

objectives of the project. The objective was to 

try to achieve as many tangible products as 

possible with little or no regard to the 

promotion of local participation. Furthermore, 

project personnel perceived local participation 

simply as a process through which the target 

audiences are communicated about the project. 

In other words, these people defined 

participation as involving the audiences in 

carrying out activities that were already planned 

by the project. It is apparent that participation, 

in this sense, is a means for the project to 

achieve its target. In this regard, Oakley (1991) 

stated that when participation is considered a 

means, it could only be seen as a vehicle for 

achieving an already designed socio-economic 

objective. This limitation results in a situation 

where local people’s capacity and skills are not 

consolidated or built. He further argued that 

capacity and skills can only be built when 

participation is considered as an end of the 

project in and of itself.  

Some respondents felt that the project was short 

of staff that had specialised knowledge about 

the approach. Though they were assisted by 

Danish specialists, there was limited 

implementation of the approach introduced in 

the national strategy as it was believed to be too 

time intensive and hard to implement.  

Project outcomes 

Despite a number of issues that still require 

further action to ensure that the project is 

targeting sustainable development, the project 

has brought about a number of significant 

changes for local people, at least within the 

research areas.  

 

For infrastructure, one success of the project is 

that it has established a number of piped water 

schemes that supply clean water for ordinary 

villager’s everyday consumption, putting an end 

to the utilisation of contaminated water. The use 

of contaminated water has been identified as the 

main cause of common disease in the 

communities.  

 

The availability of water schemes has lead to 

other positive physical changes among the 

households. For example, it was observed that 

many households upgraded or constructed new 

bathrooms and latrines using piped water. 

Regarding behavioural changes, although the 

project was limited in several ways, the project 

has introduced villagers and local leaders to a 

completely new approach which proves to be 

more effective than the existing one. An 

advantage of this approach is that it allows 

villagers to have active participation in planning 

and decision making processes. Though the 

implementation of the approach in this project 

was not always smooth, a new air has been 

blown in the community. For the stakeholders 

and local leaders, the approach urged them to 

rethink their traditional attitudes toward 

development and local input. It pointed out to 

them that local input is an important resource 

for the success of a project. It also pointed out 

that sustainability could hardly be achieved 

without active local participation.  

 

For the villagers, the approach signified the 

beginning of the end of a long period where the 

mentality of dependence reigned. To some 

extent, the traditional notion that it is the 

government’s responsibility to establish 

schemes for local projects has changed among 

the villagers. Many of the locals have created 

development initiatives, though not all of them 

have been feasible or supported. Despite this, it 

is an important step in the process that brings an 

end to the mentality of dependence.  

 

The approach created an opportunity for 

villagers to discuss, express their feelings, and 

exchange opinions about development freely. It 

also helped them change their awareness and 

behaviour: marginalisation, particularly of 

women, the poor, and of ethnic minorities was 

reduced.   

 

Moreover, with the water schemes coming into 

existence, the incidence of waterborne and 

sanitation related disease was significantly 

reduced. This meant that villagers could save 



Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 422-446. 

442 
 

more money to purchase more sophisticated 

means of production, to improve productivity of 

crops, or purchase labour saving devices like 

washing machines.  

 

Lessons learned from the promotion of 

participatory approach in the project 

Although there are a number of definitions and 

interpretations of participation, its progress 

toward common acceptance has not always been 

smooth. (Please see chapter 2 of this article.) 

Although generalisation is problematic, it is 

useful to measure and judge participation in 

specific social, economic, cultural, and political 

contexts. The results of this article also reveal 

that the term “participation” connotes a wide 

range of meanings and practices.  

 

First, local participation was identified as a 

central principle for the implementation of the 

Daklak rural water supply and sanitation 

project. Yet, its implementation in practice has 

not been as effective as had been intended. This 

is because of varying perceptions of the 

meaning of participation among project 

personnel and stakeholders. Moreover, the 

project lacked an appropriate mechanism to 

promote it. Data collected revealed that the 

project lacked determination in promoting the 

approach. Furthermore, it lacked an appropriate 

mechanism to attract the involvement of all 

levels of the government in promoting 

participation.  

Secondly, it is important to increase donors’ 

roles, particularly in terms of piloting the 

strategy and approach. As it happened, the 

donor’s role in this project was diminished. 

Donor participation is considered necessary, 

especially once the project is on track. This is 

particularly true when local participation is 

promoted in a political environment which does 

not generally promote participation. In this case, 

the involvement of the donor was not strong 

enough to promote participation.  

Thirdly, local participation is critical because 

data collected showed that the sustainability of 

schemes is closely associated with the degree of 

local participation. The more attention is given 

to IEC activities, the more sustainable the 

projects will be.  

Fourth, the promotion of local participation 

must be locally sensitive and appropriate. That 

is, socio-economic, cultural, ethnic and political 

contexts must be considered. Moreover, factors 

like local capacity, literacy, language, and other 

social relations need to be considered carefully. 

The experience of this project revealed that the 

success of the project in general was largely 

dependent upon how carefully these factors 

were taken into consideration.  

Fifth, cumbersome administrative procedures, 

and a style of administration that is autocratic 

and hierarchical, creates few incentives for local 

participation. It does however frustrate efforts to 

promote participation. 

Last but not least, in areas with a high incidence 

of poverty and a need for clean water, it is 

completely understandable why villagers were 

interested mainly in immediate benefits that 

could help alleviate their most urgent needs. 

Therefore, it is important that long-term 

strategies be reinforced by tangible, short-term 

objectives (Nguyen 2003). 

The conclusions of this article are primarily 

formulated on the basis of field observations, 

project documents, and the experiences of the 

researcher after three years working for the 

project. It is therefore important that these 

lessons should be viewed with some caution, as 

they are not entirely reflective of the overall 

situation of the project. This is due to certain 

constraints encountered in the course of 

executing the research. It is also necessary to 

verify the reliability of observations by a review 

documented in the project documents.  

Implications for practice 

Due to constraints as described in previous 

parts, the eventual findings of this research 

cannot be generalised to conclude what should 

be done in all cases to promote a participatory 

approach in a development project. Also, it 

cannot indicate best practices or specific 

procedures that should be followed in all cases. 

Nonetheless, a number of useful 

recommendations do emerge from the research. 

These recommendations can be used as 

resources by development projects that aim to 

promote the participatory approach as a part of 

their major implementation strategies.  

 



Participation in Development: A Case Study..... 

443 
 

First and foremost, development practitioners 

need to clarify what the participatory approach 

actually means in their projects (Nguyen 2003). 

Without this clarity they cannot set up SMART
6
 

objectives. Owen and Rogers (1999) stated that 

the “SMARTER” the objective, the easier it will 

be achieved. In other words, these practitioners 

need to identify whether participation as 

envisioned by their projects simply means the 

physical contributions of the target audience. 

Or, is it envisioned as a process of informing 

and consulting the public? Or, is it something 

else all together? Once the objectives are 

clarified, a specific set of procedures by which 

the approach will be promoted, needs to be 

formulated. This is very important; without a 

clear procedure, the promotion of local 

participation will likely fail because of a lack of 

direction and information.  

Another consideration is the fact that the 

promotion of the participatory approach is 

difficult to achieve through existing social 

organisations and administrative systems. Social 

organizations and the current administrative 

system are not conducive to local participation. 

Consequently, vulnerable individuals and 

groups are easily marginalised. To avoid this, 

appropriate mechanisms and environments must 

be established to promote participation apart 

from focusing on building local capacity.  

The promotion of local participation depends 

greatly on specific local context, which varies 

from place to place. Certain approaches that 

may increase local participation in one area may 

not be successful in another due to different 

social, cultural, ethnic, and political contexts. 

To maximise local participation it is important 

that program staff make necessary adjustments 

to procedures to make sure they are culturally 

appropriate and sensitive.  

Specialised staff is required to develop and 

implement programs that enhance local 

participation. These staff must be locally 

knowledgeable, particularly in terms of culture 

and indigenous language. The latter is 

particularly important when the project takes 

place in indigenous communities where the 

                                                 
6
 Specific, manageable, achievable, realistic and time 

limited 

national language (the Kinh’s language) may 

not be spoken by most people.  

Last but not least, there remains room for 

further efforts to narrow the gap in the 

partnership between international donors and 

the local governments. Presently, these partners 

still participate in the project as normal 

stakeholders. An expanded view of the donor 

and local government must emerge. The donor 

must maintain impact throughout the project, 

not just in the early stages. Attention was not 

sufficiently paid to the relationship between the 

community and local government in this 

project. Communities need support from the 

local government to increase local participation 

in projects. They also need short-term, tangible 

outcomes which provide incentive. Local 

government can either aid this process, or, it can 

severely diminish it. Without the effective co-

operation of the local community, local 

government, and the international donor, no 

meaningful increase in participation can occur.  

As argued in the literature review, the 

promotion of local participation remains a 

controversial topic, particularly in the field of 

development. Some authors considered that the 

promotion of participation is important in 

development projects, while others showed 

reservations. Despite the differences in opinion 

that exist, data presented in this article 

demonstrates that the promotion of local 

participation is necessary and important as it has 

a close association with the success and 

sustainability of a project. Furthermore, it 

appears to be the best way to create a sense of 

responsibility and ownership among target 

audiences. Therefore, we should not question 

whether or not local participation should be 

promoted in development projects, but rather 

we should question how to promote it in the 

most effective way in different communities. 

Nor should we consider the obstacles to the 

promotion of local participation, or challenges 

to the adoption of changes by local and 

international stakeholders as a basis to question 

or dismiss local participation (Nguyen 2003). 

 

References 
Aaker, J. and Shumaker, J. (1994) “Looking 

Back and Looking Forward”, Little Rock, 

Arkansas: Heifer Project International. 



Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 422-446. 

444 
 

Barnett, C. (2003) “Culture and Democracy”,  

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 

Barry, K. (1996) “Vietnam’s Women In 

Transition”, Philadelphia: The Pennsylvania 

State University. 

Campfens, H. (1996) “Community 

Development Around The World”, London: 

University of Toronto Press.  

Cameron, D. (1978) “The Expansion of the 

Public Economy: A Comparative Analysis”, 

American Political Science Review, Vol. 72, pp. 

1243-61. 

Cautella, J. C. (1994) “Using Qualitative 

Approaches”, Handbook of Practical Program 

Evaluation. San Francisco, Calif,: Jossey-Bass . 

Castillo, C. T. (1983) “How Participatory is 

Participatory Development: A Review of the 

Philippine Experience”, Manila: Philippine 

Institute for Development Studies.  

Cleaver, F. (1999) “Paradoxes of Participation: 

Questioning Participatory Approaches to 

Development”, Journal of International 

Development, Vol. 11, pp. 597-612. 

Cleaver, F. (2001) “Institutions, Agency and 

Limitations of Participatory Approaches to 

Development”, In Cooke, B and Kothari, U. 

(eds) Participation: The New Tyranny. London; 

New York; Zed Books. 

Chambers, R. (1994) “Participatory Rural 

Appraisal (PRA): Challenges, Potentials and 

Paradigm”, World Development, Vol. 22(10), 

pp. 1437-1454. 

Chambers, R. (1994) “The Origin and Practice 

of Participatory Rural Appraisal”, World 

Development, Vol. 22(7), pp. 953-956. 

Chambers, R. (1983) “Rural Development: 

Putting the Last First”, London; New York, 

Longman.  

Cohen, J. M. and Uphoff, N. T. (1980) 
“Participation’s Place in Rural Development: 

Seeking Clarity through Specificity”, World 

Development, Vol. 8(2), pp. 213-235. 

Cook, T. and Morgan. P. (1971)  
“Participatory Democracy”, New York: Harpers 

& Row. 

Cu Jut District (2002) “Cu Jut District 

Statistics”, Vietnam: Cu Jut District. 

David, S. (1974) “Participation in Australia”, 

Sydney: Australian Council of Social Service. 

Daklak Rural Water Supply and Sanitation 

Project. Vietnam (2002) Participatory Hygiene 

and Sanitation Transformation (PHAST) 

Training Document, Daklak: Daklak Rural 

Water Supply and Sanitation Project. 

Daklak Rural Water Supply and Sanitation 

Project. Vietnam (2001) PRA Report. Daklak: 

Daklak Rural Water Supply and Sanitation 

Project. 

Daklak Rural Water Supply and Sanitation 

Project. Vietnam (2002) PRA Report. Daklak: 

Daklak Rural Water Supply and Sanitation 

Project. 

Daklak Rural Water Supply and Sanitation 

Project. Vietnam (2004) Evaluation Report. 

Daklak Rural water Supply and Sanitation 

Project, Vietnam. 

Daklak Rural Water Supply and Sanitation 

Project (2001) Project Document. Hanoi: 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. 

Daklak Rural Water Supply and Sanitation 

Project (2001) A Feasibility Study Report. 

Daklak Rural Water Supply and Sanitation 

Project.  

Daklak Rural Water Supply and Sanitation 

Project (2003) Progress Report. Daklak: 

Daklak Rural Water Supply and Sanitation 

Project. 

Daklak Department of Statistics (2003) 
Daklak Province Statistics. Daklak Province, 

Vietnam: Daklak Department of Statistics. 

Economic Commission for Latin America 

(1973) “Popular Participation in Development”, 

Community Development Journal Vol. (2), pp. 

77-93. 

Fals-Borda, O. (1988) “Knowledge and 

People’s Power”, New Delhi, Indian Social 

Institute. 

Faguet, J. P. (1997) “Decentralisation and 

Local Government Performance”, Washington, 

D.C.: World Bank. 

Garcia, M. and Way. S. (2003) “Winning 

Spaces: Participatory Methodologies in Rural 

Process in Mexico”, Brighton, U.K.: Institute of 

Development Studies, University of Sussex. 

Ghai, D. (1984) “Small Farmer Development 

Programmes. Mid-term Evaluation”, Rome: 

International Fund for Agricultural 

Development (IFAD). 

Greer, T. (1958) “What Roosevelt Thought”, 

Michigan, Ill.: Michigan State University Press. 

Ghai, D. (1981) “The IMF and the South: The 

Social Impact of Crisis and Adjustment”, 

London; Atlantic Highlands, N. J.: Zed Books, 

1981. 



Participation in Development: A Case Study..... 

445 
 

Government of Vietnam (2003) Vietnam 

Annual Statistics, Hanoi: Government of 

Vietnam. 

Ha, H. (1999) “Vietnam Economic Transition 

in the Perspectives of Public Policy in the Post 

Economic Crisis”, Paper presented at the 

International Conference on the Challenges of 

Globalisation, Bangkok.  

Hardiman, M. and Middley, J. (1982) “The 

Social Dimensions of Development: Social 

Policy and Planning in the Third World”, New 

York: John Wiley and Sons Limited. 

Homlmes, T. (2001) “A Participatory Approach 

in Practice”, Brighton, U.K.: Institute of 

Development Studies at the University of 

Sussex. 

Howell, J. (1984) “Issues, Non-Issues and 

Lessons from the T and V Extension System”,  

Wagenningen, Netherlands: University of 

Wagenningen. 

Kasperson, R. E. and Myrna, B. (1974) 
“Participation, Decentralization and Advocacy 

Planning”, Washington: Association of 

American Geographers, Commission on 

College Geography.  

Kerkvliet, B. and Porter. D. (1995) 

“Vietnam’s Rural Transformation”,  Singapore: 

Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. 

Illich, I. (1969) “Celebration of Awareness”, 

Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Penguin. 

Laura, J.S. (1989) “Winning through 

Participation”, Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt 

Publishing Company. 

Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. (1995) 
“Designing Qualitative Research”, London: 

Sage Publications.  

Marisol, E. (2000) “Learning from a Change”, 

London: Intermediate Technology Publications 

– Intervening Development Center. 

Mayo, M. and Craig. G. (1995) “Community 

Empowerment, A Reader In Participation and 

Development”, London: Zed Books.   

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 

Development Vietnam (2000) “National Rural 

Water Supply and Sanitation Strategy Up to 

2020”, Vietnam: Ministry of Agriculture and 

Rural Development.  

Moser, C. O. N. (1993) “Gender Planning and 

Development. Theory, Practice and Training”, 

London; New York: Routledge. 

Narayan, D. (2000) “A Guide to Participatory 

Tools and Techniques”, Washington D.C.: 

World Bank. 

Nguyen, T. A. (2002) “Participatory Social 

Planning in Vietnam: Opportunities and 

Limitations”, Unpublished Master Article, 

Master of Social Planning and Development, 

Department of Anthropology, Archaeology and 

Sociology, the University of Qeensland.   

Nguyen, T. N. M. (2003) “Demystifying 

Participation. A Case Study of Development 

Projects from Northern Mountain Region of 

Vietnam”, Unpublished Master Article, Master 

of Social Planning and Development, 

Department of Anthropology, Archaeology and 

Sociology, the University of Queensland. 

Oakley, P. (1991) “Projects with People: The 

Practice of Participation in Rural 

Development”, Geneva: International Labor 

Office. 

Owen, M. and Rogers, P. (1999) “Program 

Evaluation”, Sydney: Allen & Uniwin. 

Owen, J. M. (1999) “Program Evaluation: 

Forms and Approaches”, St Leonards, N.S.W.: 

Allen and Unwin.  

Orlando Fals, B (1987) “The Application of 

Participatory Action Research in Latin 

America”, International Sociology Vol. 2(4), 

pp. 19-87.  

Paul, S. (1987) “Community Participation in 

Development Projects”, Discussion Paper No.6. 

Washington, D.C.: World Bank.  

Patton, M. (1990) “Qualitative Evaluation and 

Research Methods”, London: Sage Publications. 

Pearse, A. and Stiefel, M. (1979) “Inquiry into 

Participation”, Geneva: UNRISD.  

Richarson, A (1983) “Participation”, London: 

Routledge and Kegan Paul. 

Ronnas, P. and Sjoberg, O. (eds) (1990) “Doi 

Moi Economic Reforms and Development. 

Policies In Vietnam”, Papers and Proceedings 

from an international symposium Hanoi, 

December 12-15, 1989.  Sockholm: Swedish 

International Development Authority. 

Rondinelli, D. (1977) “Planning Development 

Projects”, Stroudsurg: Doweden, Hutchinson 

and Ross. 

Rondinelli, D. (1981) “Government 

Decentralisation in Comparative Perspective: 

Theory and Practice in Developing Countries”, 

International Review of Administrative Science, 

Vol. 67, pp. 133-145. 



Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(3), pp. 422-446. 

446 
 

Rondinelli, D. and Cheema, G. (1981) 
“Implementing Decentralisation”, in Cheema, G 

and Dennis, D. (eds.), Decentralisation and 

Development: Policies Implementation in 

Developing Countries. London: Sage 

Publications. 

Salmen, L. (1987) “Listening to the People: 

Participation Observation Evaluation of 

Development Projects”, New York: Oxford 

University Press. 

Sarantakos, S. (1993) “Social Research”, 

Melbourne. Macmillan Education Australia.  

Sethi, J. D. (1978) “Gandhi Today”, Durham, 

N.C.: Carolina Academic Press. 

Sethi, H. (1987) “Refocussing”, New Delhi: 

Setu-Lokayan. 

Stiefel, M. and M. Wolfe (1994) “A Voice for 

the Excluded: Popular Participation in 

Development: Utopia or Necessity?”, London; 

Atlantic Highlands, N. J.: Zed Books in 

Association with the United Nations Research 

Institute for Social Development (UNRISD). 

Thayer, C. and Marr, D. (1980) “Vietnam 

Since 1975 Two Views From Australia”, 

Nathan, Qld.: Center For The Study Of 

Australian-Asian Relations, Griffith University. 

Uphoff, N. (1991) “Fitting Projects to People”, 

In Cernea, M.M. (ed), Putting People First: 

Sociological Variables in Rural Development. 

Washington, Oxford University Press. 

Uphoff, N. (1981) “Farmers’ Participation in 

Project Formulation, Design and Operation”, 

Washington, D.C.:USAID. 

Uphoff, N. (1986b) “Approaches to 

Participation in Agriculture and Rural 

Development”, in Bamberger, M (ed.), 

Readings in Community Participation. 

Washington, D.C.: Economic Development 

Institute, the World Bank.  

Van Wijk-Sijbesma, C. (1981) “Participation 

and Education in Community Water Supply and 

Sanitation Programmes: a Literature Review”, 

The Hague: I.R.C. 

White, A (1981) “Community Participation In 

Water and Sanitation: Concepts, Strategies and 

Methods”, The Hague: IRC.  

Yukawa, S. (1998) “The Arguments for 

Planning” in Yukawa, S. and Urrutima, M. (eds) 

Development Planning in Mixed Economies. 

Tokyo: The United Nations University.