Maximum Feasible Participation: The Origins, Implications, and Present Status

Abstract

Even among those who framed the Economic Opportunity Act, there is little consensus about how the phrase "maximum feasible participation" was formulated or about its intended meaning. An analysis of the social history of the idea suggests that its roots lie in community development programs for underdeveloped nations. The civil rights movement, coupled with a growing disquietude with existing welfare policy, gave impetus to translating community development notions to the domestic scene. Several demonstration projects emphasizing the need for citizen participation were precursors of CAP; some were already embroiled in heated conflicts. Yet, the revolutionary implications of what they were proposing escaped the framers of the act, in part, because of the preconceptions about poverty, race, and welfare that grip American thought and distort our vision. The struggle over defining and implementing the participation clause focused on policy-making and jobs. The most profound controversy settled around the policy-making issue because it involved a redistribution of power. Congress dealt with the conflict by both specifying the meaning of participation and limiting local initiative. While CAP may not survive current OEO reorganization in any viable form, the idea of "maximum feasible participation" has captured the imagination of the urban poor, with the force of an idea whose time has come; it will not die.