Local Participation or Elite Capture in Sheep’s Clothing? A Conundrum of Locally Led Development

Abstract

This article discusses concepts of legitimacy and elite capture in locally led development through a case study of the Pacific-based Green Growth Leaders’ Coalition (GGLC). GGLC is a fellowship of persons identified for their developmental leadership potential on issues of sustainability and economic growth. Members are recruited into an exclusive grouping dedicated to influencing positive developmental change through informal networks and political backchannels. With their membership representing people who both self-identify and are locally recognised as leaders, queries exist to the extent to which their efforts represent a shift towards greater ownership of developmental processes at local levels or simply reinforce elite capture of ‘local voice’ in the most aid-dependent region in the world. Rather than necessarily offering straightforward answers to questions of legitimacy and elite capture, the example of GGLC demonstrates how complex the notion of locally led development can be in practice.

Locally Led Opportunities for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, Climate Change and Gender Equality Partnerships in the Blue Pacific

“…While coalitions can and do play a role in driving gender equality and inclusion in society, they are not necessarily inclusive within themselves and, rather, may be led by or comprise elite decision-makers and/or those with access to power and resources which will need to be managed by coalition leaders and members. This phenomenon is known as "elite capture", whereby the views of local elites are conflated with those affected by development activities at the grassroots level, and often these are well-educated and well-connected men [38]. The regional Pacific Leadership Program, funded by Australia's aid program (2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017), provided insights into social justice coalitions in the Blue Pacific, especially in relation to the origins and membership, and their impacts on successes and challenges.…”

“…This study is the first of its kind to draw together and analyse research related to partnerships within and across these three distinct but interrelated sub-sectors of civil society. Studies have been conducted on women's coalitions and partnerships in the Blue Pacific [36,37], youth leadership and coalitions [38,39], WASH and GEDSI partnerships [6][7][8] and climate change NGO coalitions and partnerships [40,41]. Further relevant studies have been conducted on cross-sector partnerships [42], WASH and RHO partnerships [6,9] and leadership in the Blue Pacific [32].…”

How can aid be decolonized and localized in the Pacific? Yielding and wielding power

“…Craney (2020, p. 191) broadly defines locally led development or locally led projects as those “owned, negotiated, and delivered by locals.” Yet Craney (2020) acknowledges that the local is very much contextual. Using the Pacific‐based Green Growth Leader's Coalition (GGLC) as a case study, Craney illustrates how locally led initiatives in the Pacific use the educated elite as enablers.…”

The Characteristics of Locally Led Development in the Pacific

“…16-18;Gibson, 2019). GGLC was a self-appointed elite of influential Pacific public servants and community sector leaders (see Craney, 2020). TVI's membership reflects its middleclass student origins.…”