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

Aidan Craney

doi:10.17645/pag.v8i4.3343

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.

Highlights

Definitions of local leadership in development discourse are quite broad
The discussion in this article of Green Growth Leaders’ Coalition (GGLC) as an example of a locally led development initiative is based on data drawn through an action research project that was conducted with GGLC that began in 2016
During 2016 and 2017 the research team regularly engaged with Coalition members through face-to-face meetings, phone calls and emails asking for feedback on GGLC as a concept and its processes, as well as a survey instrument to track how they were progressing with their individual goals for advancing locally led, sustainable development

Summary

Introduction

Definitions of local leadership in development discourse are quite broad. For example, in Booth and Unsworth’s influential article, ‘Politically smart, locally led development,’ the authors note that their conception of locally led projects are those that are owned, negotiated and delivered by “locals (broadly defined) [who] are more likely than outsiders to have the motivation, credibility, knowledge and networks to mobilise support, leverage relationships and seize opportunities” (2014, p. 13). Local leadership connotes connection of the leader to understandings of the livelihoods needs and political economy of local spaces but bypasses discussion of how deep this connection runs and how legitimacy is demonstrated at the grassroots level. This is not to say that this matter has not been addressed at all. Rather than writing of development that is locally led, owned or delivered the authors instead refer to ‘Local First’ practices that acknowledge power differentials between donor agencies and international Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) on one side and a generic conception of the ‘local’ on the other, and at the local level. I conclude with reflections on how development donors and multilateral organisations could improve practices of supporting locally led development in ways that include and bring benefit to non-elites

Elite Capture in ‘Locally Led’ Development Interventions

Context

Local Leadership in the Pacific

Discussion

Conclusion