IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cdipxx/v18y2008i2p223-234.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community sustainable-development indicators: a useful participatory technique or another dead end?

Author

Listed:
  • Alan Terry

Abstract

This article undertakes a critical re-evaluation of a DFID-funded project in South Africa which ran between 1998 and 2001. The evaluation sought to test whether the development of community-led indicators would improve governance. Since the project ended, a series of papers have been published that are critical of such participatory methods, arguing particularly that they are apolitical and adopt a technocratic approach. In the light of these criticisms, this article re-assesses the DFID project, following on from the initial evaluation carried out by the author in 2001. Sobantu, a black township in Pietermaritzburg, was one of the original project sites. It was chosen as the subject for research because the local implementing agency was a politically astute, well-connected institution that understood the political nature of the process required to develop the indicators. Although the project achieved some positive outcomes, the long-term commitment to the indicators has since been compromised. This was in large part due to the inability of community members to engage meaningfully with key municipal service providers. However, recent changes to the South African planning regime might provide opportunities for the indicators to become more useful again.

Suggested Citation

  • Alan Terry, 2008. "Community sustainable-development indicators: a useful participatory technique or another dead end?," Development in Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 223-234, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:cdipxx:v:18:y:2008:i:2:p:223-234
    DOI: 10.1080/09614520801899044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09614520801899044
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09614520801899044?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cdipxx:v:18:y:2008:i:2:p:223-234. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cdip .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.