Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) and Norms of Participation in Tanzania: Working against the Grain

Abstract

Abstract:The “institutional turn” in contemporary development theory has emphasized the importance of facilitating the emergence of institutions that will improve citizens' abilities to make choices. More important, it has suggested that the effectiveness of these institutions depends upon their ability to “work with the grain” of the local sociocultural environment. This article argues that community-based organizations (CBOs), as one prominent embodiment of institutional blueprints guiding relationships between state and nonstate actors in development efforts, are a poor fit in the context of contemporary urban Tanzania. This is because they are not consonant with the norms that have long governed popular participation in either the development process or associational life. Although the specific conclusions are limited to Dar es Salaam, the study calls for a method of interrogation that is not only historically and sociologically grounded, but also broadly applicable to other development issues.

Desires of Community Participation in Tourism Development Decision Making Process: A Case Study of Barabarani, Mto Wa Mbu, Tanzania

“…Consequently, little is known about local communities' participation in decisions making. Existing literatures show that in Tanzania, community participation is virtually non-existent (Dill, 2010;Shivji, 2006;Wade et al, 2001). Community participation in Tanzania is still a top-down approach and its history can be traced back to Tanzania's early years of independence and a socialist mode of economy where all decisions were centrally made (Dill, 2010).…”

“…Existing literatures show that in Tanzania, community participation is virtually non-existent (Dill, 2010;Shivji, 2006;Wade et al, 2001). Community participation in Tanzania is still a top-down approach and its history can be traced back to Tanzania's early years of independence and a socialist mode of economy where all decisions were centrally made (Dill, 2010). The subsequent adoption of a multiparty political system and the introduction of decentralization have opened new spaces for public participation, providing citizens greater opportunities to organize or to pursue other collective goals (Dill, 2010).…”

“…Community participation in Tanzania is still a top-down approach and its history can be traced back to Tanzania's early years of independence and a socialist mode of economy where all decisions were centrally made (Dill, 2010). The subsequent adoption of a multiparty political system and the introduction of decentralization have opened new spaces for public participation, providing citizens greater opportunities to organize or to pursue other collective goals (Dill, 2010). This form of participation however, needs an appropriate mechanism on how it can be operationalized.…”

Autonomous but constrained: CBOs and urban upgrading in Indonesia

“…9-10). Expecting CBOs in poor communities to play deepening or appropriate roles in CDD, for instance, necessitates building their capacity, and facilitating complementarity between desired institutions and existing social norms (Dill, 2010). Capacitybuilding efforts should support the nature of CBO tasks, and, hence, they could either be of a more hands-off, inducing type (for stretching roles) or a more nurturing type (for deepening roles) using intermediaries as catalysts (Krishna, 2003, p. 367).…”

Furthering critical institutionalism

“…2 We loosely combine such authors under the umbrella label of critical institutionalism, though they would not necessarily recognize or use that label themselves. delivery (Olivier de Sardan 2008;Hagmann and Péclard 2010;Jones 2015); the efficacy of community based approaches to development (Dill 2010); and the nature of property and access (Sikor and Lund 2009). These intersecting literatures offer valuable insights into the formation of institutional norms through everyday practices (Arts et al 2013), and through the authoritative allocation of resources in 'twilight' institutional zones (Lund 2006).…”