CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, there is an overview of previous studies is mainly in the subject of effect of
community participation in local government administration, at the same time, the theoretical
frame of reference for the study is presented. Here there are theories and models that build the
study's foundations for further discussions. Some models presented here are taken from other
studies. But there is also a self-constructed model that lifts the core of community participation
in the development of local government administration.
2.1 Conceptual Framework
2.1.1 The Concept of Community Development/ Participation
It is the duty of the local government to ensure service delivery at the grassroots, support
infrastructure by building public, low cost homes as well as building and maintaining public
parks, increase training opportunities for the community dwellers and also attune government
policies in favour of the community. An additional response is needed whereby government
agencies develop a greater role in helping communities build their capacity for development
(Cavaye, 2000).
Increasing number of people no longer view the safety of their neighborhoods as the sole
responsibility of the police. In well-ordered countries, citizens in areas plagued by crime and
violence are uniting to work with local governments. Together, they have the knowledge and
resources to identify and remove the sources of crime, drug use, and juvenile delinquency in
their communities. Developing and sustaining these partnerships require strong local leadership
from Chairmen, city managers, city planners, and other elected local officials. It is the role of the
local government to foster such initiatives and organise groups involved in crime control in their
various localities so as to give room for the community to develop (Asheroft, 2001).
The role of local government in community development include: creating a “vehicle” for
local people to express and act on existing concerns; judging appropriate interaction with
communities from “consultation” to genuine partnership and facilitation; personal relationships
between local public servants and community members is crucial to government’s involvement
in local affairs and capacity development; molding formal “structures” that mediate community
involvement with a grassroots culture of local participation; community members “unlearning”
the role of government solely as a “provider” and government “unlearning” the historical
technical assistance approach to communities; fostering relationships between community
members and government workers by increasing the “ networking” role of public servants in
communities and initiating contact with a greater diversity of clients (Cavaye, 2000:2).
Local government is supposed to provide services and internal support for communities
and the technical assistance provided can aid community development. When local government
provides support for communities, it contributes greatly to economic development,
infrastructure, and quality of life of the common man. Although local government activity and
services are sometimes perceived to be confined to infrastructure provision and enforcement of
regulations, local authorities can embrace an enhanced multidisciplinary role in local,
community and enterprise development. This includes working with the local and community
development sector to promote the interests of local communities and playing a leading role in
coordinating the delivery and integration of services at local level.
2.1.2 The Concept of Local Government
The performance of local governments has been receiving increasing attention in Nigeria
over the past decades, from both academic and civil society sectors. All over the world and
especially in Africa, local government is seen as a means of enhancing development and service
delivery, improve governance and deepen democracy (Buccus, Hemson, Hicks and Piper, 2007).
The National Guidelines for Reforms of Local Government (1976) in Nigeria defines
Local Government as:
Government at local levels exercised through representative councils established by law
to exercise specific powers within defined areas. These powers should give the council
substantial control over local affairs as well as staff and institutional and financial powers to
initiate and direct the provision of services and so determine and implement projects so as to
complement the activities of the state and federal Governments in their areas and to ensure
through devolution of functions in these councils and through the active participation of the
people and then traditional institutions that local initiative and response to local needs and
conditions are maximized (cited in Bello, 1986).
This explains the legality of local governments which has the backing of the fourth
schedule of the 1999 constitution to enforce authority and power within its territorial boundary.
It is expected to discharge duties which ensure effectiveness at the local level and this should in
some ways contribute to the overall growth and development of the nation.
Mabogunje (in Ibietan, 2010) cited some of the major expectations from local governments
which include:
a) Improving the living standards of the subsistence population through mobilisation and
allocation of resources to achieve desirable balance over time between the welfare and
productive services available to the rural subsistence populations.
b) Ensuring mass participation aimed at achieving both allocative rationality plus equity
with redistributive efficiency.
c) Making the process self-sustaining: this requires appropriate skills acquisition and
development; capacity building; and availability/presence of functional institutions at
local, state and federal levels to facilitate optimal use of available resources and the
development of the rural areas.
Nigeria operates a federal system with feeble attempts at democratic practice and has three
tiers of government namely: the federal government, the state government and the local
government being the third tier. It is pertinent to note that the practice of federalism in Nigeria
has had several interference by the military who imported their unitary command system into
governance. A semblance of this unitary command still exists in the present democratic
dispensation as power is concentrated in the hands of the federal government, impinging on the
true practice of federalism as devolution appears shaky. The practice of federalism in Nigeria
deviates from the letter and spirit of federalism as advocated by K.C. Wheare who is credited
with developing a concise treatise of federalism (Ibietan, 2010:31). Onyeoziri (in Ibietan,
2010:205) further argues that the inconsistencies characterizing the logic of federal practice
especially in Nigeria where each level/tier of government which is supposed to be coordinate and
independent in its sphere becomes subordinated and this is contrary to the letter and spirit of
federalism as advocated by K. C. Wheare (1784) who developed the original idea of federalism
(Ibietan, 2010). Onyeoziri (in Ibietan, 2010) further corroborated that the imperfections in the
state institutions also create some disabilities for the federal practice. He therefore cautioned on
the lacuna in discussing federalism without backing it with “a uitable theory of state” (which is
the infrastructure) onto which federalism is grafted. Thus, a mutual reinforcement of the two
variables offers a reliable strategy in guaranteeing stable federal arrangements (Ibietan, 2010).
When there is an effective federal practice, then there can be proper deconcentration and
devolution of powers to subnational governments, to perform their duties.
The Nigerian federal structure allows the existence of the local government as the third
tier of government. Section 7(1) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
specifically guarantees a democratically elected local government system. The fourth schedule of
the same constitution similarly defines the roles of the local governments (Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999).The Nigerian federation currently has 774 local government units created for
grassroots administration and for delivering services to the people at the various local levels as
well as creating a relationship with the local people through which the government can be
responsive to their needs and demands. In addition, local governments also exists to ensure
effective political involvement of the local people in the policy making process as well as in the
affairs of government (Afrobarometer, 2013). Some scholars are of a contrary opinion that the
local governments have not performed their functions as agents of development; rather they have
attained disrepute for corruption, fiscal disorderliness and overall irresponsibility. The lack of
uprightness, transparency and accountability at the local level of government constitute a heavy
toll on the welfare of average Nigerians (Agbo, 2010).
Local government as the name implies is the government established for the sole purpose
of directly governing the local populace. This means that the government at the local level is
expected to be transparent and accountable to the local people for whom it was created and the
provisions of the constitution ought to be reflected through the running of this tier of
government. As an aberration to good governance, corruption exists at the three tiers of
government, and local governments in Nigeria are often seen as nurturing grounds for barefaced
corruption and near absence of transparency and accountability in the conduct of its governance
(Abubakar, 2010). Gabriel (2011) argues further that corruption has become an everyday issue in
the context of the Nigerian governments, as there are frequent cases of stealing, embezzlement
and mismanagement of funds. “Thieving has become a major interest and diversion for Nigerians
in high places. It has become a big time occupation. All arms of government are affected and the
local government is not excluded” (Gabriel, 2011:19). The lack of autonomy and financial power
to attract and retain qualified personnel are also major problems as local governments do not
possess the necessary resources needed to formulate and fully implement programmes that are
beneficial to the communities they govern. This lack of autonomy is partly attributed to constant
interference and impediments on the affairs of the local governments by the state governments.
Lawal (2000) opined that local government is the tier of government closest to the people
and it is vested with certain powers to exercise control over the affairs of people in its domain. A
local government council is therefore expected to play the roles of promoting the democratic
ideals of a society and co coordinating development programmes at the local level. It is also
expected to serve as the basis of socioeconomic development in the locality.
Despite the numerous challenges it faces, local government is essentially a pathway to, and
patron of national integration, organization and development (Lawal, 2000).Oviasuyi & Isiraojie
(2010) averred that local governments exist in Nigeria, yet the resident populations in it are
denied the benefits of its existence. Local governments have however been criticized by many
local dwellers in various parts of Nigeria for not living up to its expectation and actualizing the
purpose for which it was created.
2.2 Theoretical Framework
Community participation frameworks are used to explain the levels of participant
involvement, influence and power. These frameworks are presented as ladders, continuums or
spectrums contributing to greater understanding of community engagement and consistency in
implementation and policy development. They are tools for eliciting greater structure in the
community engagement process (Bracht and Tsouros, 1990).
2.2 1 Ladder Framework
Community Participation frameworks presented as a ladder include Arnstein’s Ladder of
Citizen Participation, The Public Participation Ladder, A Ladder of Participation, Ladder of
Citizen Empowerment, and a Ladder of Empowerment, These frameworks are now discussed.
2.2.2 Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation
Arnstein (1969) argues ‘participation is the cornerstone to democracy’ (p.6) and in the
context of land-use planning decision making, developed a model to explain levels of
participation (Figure 2-2). Arnstein explores community participation in terms of the distribution
of citizen power, describing the ladder as ‘the redistribution of power that enables the ‘have-
nots’ citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes to be deliberately
included’ (Arnstein, 1969). Arnstein’s framework remains at the core of many approaches to
community engagement. The ladder’s lasting application may be attributed to its ability to
demonstrate the role of power relations which exist during community participation with
organizations.
Citizen Control Degree of citizen
power
Delegated power Degree of citizen
power
Partnership Degree of citizen
power
Placation Degree of
tokenism
Consultation Degree of
tokenism
Informing Degree of
tokenism
Therapy Non -
participation
Manipulation NON-
participation
Ladder of Citizen Participation (Arnstein, 1969)
The ladder’s steps represent a progression of citizen participation ranging from non-
participation to full participation. The lower rungs describe how holders of power ‘educate’
community stakeholders. At this level, community stakeholders have no power or influence. The
middle rungs represent activities including notification and consultation. Such activities give the
impression of power, but no real power is given to citizens. It is only when community
stakeholders are involved in equal partnerships with decision makers that power is delegated and
influential. An overview of Arnstein’s (1969) framework:
2.2 3 Overview Ladder of Citizen Participation
STAGE DESCRIPTION
Manipulation This rung is non-
participatory and
aims only to cure
or educate
community
stakeholders.
Community
stakeholders
have no power or
influence.
Therapy Similar to
manipulation,
this rung is non-
participatory and
aims only to cure
or educate
community
stakeholders.
Community
stakeholders
have no power or
influence.
Informing The one-way
flow of
information,
where those in
power provide
information to
the community
stakeholders.
Community
stakeholders
have no power or
influence.
Consultation Begins to include
community
stakeholders in
the process and
guarantee that
their input will
be incorporated
into the decision
making process.
This stage
provides the
impression of
power but no real
power is given to
community
stakeholders.
Placation Provides
opportunity for
chosen
representative to
participate, again
with no
guarantee that
their input will
be incorporated
into the decision.
This stage
provides the
impression of
power but no real
power is given to
community
stakeholders.
Partnership Community
stakeholders
work with those
in the position of
power and are
given some level
of power and
included in
decision making.
Delegation Community
stakeholdersare
delegated power
and have the
dominant power
Citizen Control Community
stakeholders
have the entire
power in
decision making
including
management and
policy control.
Tritter and McCallum (2006) critique Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation suggesting it is
insufficient to describe participation as a linear progression ranging from non-participation to
citizen control. The ladder does not account for the volatility and changing nature of community
participation and should be aligned to the board game ‘Snakes and Ladders’. The introduction of
this metaphor encompasses the diversity of community engagement and the way in which
community stakeholders have I I gate through the processes. The ladder does not reflect the
complex nature of communities or decisions. While focusing on the outcome, there is no
consideration for processes, methods or levels of expertise. Arnstein does not account for the fact
that for some community stakeholders participating in itself may be the vital objective. Rather, to
her, the measure of participation lies solely with the level of power community stakeholders have
to influence decision making.
Frameworks which built upon Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation include, The
Public Participation Ladder, Ladder of Empowerment, Ladder of Citizen Empowerment and
Ladder of Participation. These are now explained.
2.2.4 The Public Participation Ladder
Wiedemann and Femers (1993) use the ladder formation to illustrate public participation
within government obligations. The Public Participation Ladder has a focus on active public
participation. The lowest level of the ladder depicts the public’s right to know, while the highest
level is active participation in final decision making.
Public
Participation in
Final Making
Public
Participation in
Assessing Risks
and
Recommending
Solutions
Public
Participation in
Defining
Interests Actors
and Determining
Agenda
Public Right to
Object
Informing the
Public
Public Right to
Know
The Public Participation Ladder (Wiedemann and Femers, 1993)
2.2.5 A Ladder of Participation
Wilcox (1999) developed a framework comprising interrelated levels of community
participation. The ‘Ladder of Participation’ suggests participation occurs in various situations
and for different reasons. It acknowledges that while power is not always transferred in
participation activities, the process is still important and mutually beneficial. While Arnstein’s
ladder denotes citizen control as the ultimate outcome, the Ladder of Participation suggestsit is
acceptable for the transfer of power to vary based on circumstances, and that the transfer of
complete power is not always the desired outcome, nor does it necessarily demonstrate effective
participation.
Information
Consultation
Deciding
together
Acting together
Supporting
individual
community
initiative.
A Ladder of Participation (Wilcox, 1999)
2.2.6 Ladder of Citizen Empowerment
There has been a move towards understanding participation in terms of the empowerment of
individuals and communities. Burns et al. (1994) modified Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen
Participation to propose the Ladder of Citizen Empowerment. This was developed on the idea of
community stakeholders as consumers and the resulting power individuals possess. This
framework is based on the notion that community stakeholders should be active in all aspects of
decision making that affects them, including those made by governments. The ladder presents
more rungs than others described and in doing so provides additional detail. Differences in
citizen control are identified as ‘independent’ and ‘entrusted’ and between ‘cynical’ and
‘genuine’ consultation. ‘Civic hype’ is included at the lowest rung on the ladder indicating that
community participation can be purely a process to sell a decision to the community.
CITIZEN
CONTROL
12 Independent
control
11 Entrusted
control
CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION
10 Delegated
Control
9 Partnership
8 Limited
decentralized
decision making
7 Effective advisory
boards.
6 Genuine
consultation
5 High quality
information
CITIZEN NON
PARTICIPATION
4 Customer Care
3 Poor information
2 Cynical
consultation
1 Civic hype
A Ladder of Citizen Empowerment (Burns et al. 1994)
2.2.7 A Ladder of Empowerment
The Ladder of Empowerment (Rocha, 1997) identifies types of empowerment similar to
Arnstein and Burns et al. The five rungs move from levels of individual involvement to
community based empowerment. The first two rungs are focused on individual empowerment,
the third rung is applicable to both individual and community empowerment, with the final two
rungs focusing on community empowerment as the ultimate goal. Rocha highlights that one rug
is not more beneficial nor important than another, rather they ‘are arranged on the ladder based
on the intended locus of their outcomes, from individual to community empowerment’ (1997, p.
35). The framework was developed in the context of service delivery and empowerment is based
on services and knowledge being provided by the service provider and consumed by the
individual or community. The ladder differs from Arnstein’s in that it focusses on empowerment
and the potential of empowerment rather than distribution of power.
Community
involvement
Rung 5 Political
empowerment
Rung 4 Socio-political
empowerment
Rung 3 Mediated
Empowerment
Rung 2 Embedded
individual
empowerment
Rung 1 Atomistic
individual
empowerment
A Ladder of Empowerment (Rocha, 1997)
2.2.8 The Efficiency Service Theory
The thrust of this paper is that the performance of local government in Nigeria can be
interrogated through this theory. This is premised on the fact that local government is the closest
tier of government to the grassroots, hence it is expected that they will impact on the populace
better than others.
The main arguments of this theory are:
Local government is an efficient agent for providing services that are local in character.
Local government exist to provide services and it must be judged by its success in
providing services up to a standard measured by a national inspectorate” (Mackenzie in
Ezeani, 2012).
In view of its proximity to the grassroots, local government can provide some services
more efficiently than the federal or state governments.
The efficient performance of these services makes the existence of local government very
compelling (Sharpe, 1970).
2.2.9 Relevance of Efficiency Service Theory to the Nigerian Local Government
System.
The fourth schedule of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is very
clear on the functions of and expectations from Local Government Councils (LGCs) as the
closest tier of government to the grassroots. These functions by which LGCs must be
interrogated include provision and maintenance of infrastructures such as roads, public
conveniences and formulation of economic planning and development schemes to mention but a
few. These have been termed as exclusive and mandatory functions of LGCs by Nwachukwu
(2000).
The LGCs also have concurrent functions such as provision and maintenance of primary,
adult and vocational education; development of agriculture and natural resources; provision and
maintenance of health services. There are also extractive functions through which they can boost
internally generated revenues; Distributive functions which deals with allocation of values and
benefits to the local populace; Regulative and protective functions aimed at maintaining law,
order and public safety; Educative functions which are directed at changing negative traditional
attitudes and dispositions which drive social and economic progress.
The view of this paper is that this theory represents an ideal but not the real situation in
Nigeria as local government councils have not robustly proved that they are efficient agent for
providing services that are local in character. To underscore this, especially with reference to the
performance of LGCs in Nigeria’s fourth republic, Adamolekun (2009) posited that “since the
return to civilian rule in 1999, the LGs are widely perceived as failed institutions”. He identified
several acts of corruption, mismanagement of monumental proportions and consistent practice of
undermining of local government autonomy as explanatory factors. The later part of this
averment is attributed to the phenomenon of military hangover in governance and public
administration system which super imposed the military unitaristic principles and bifurcated
federal practice, thus circumscribing the “coordinate and independent” position of subnational
units as advocated by theorists on federalism.
In addition, there is a disconnection between the governing elite and the populace
manifesting in low level of people oriented services and functions that can impact on the
livelihood of the masses. This is the paradox of governance in Nigeria, occasioned by the tragic
irony of the electoral process and system that catapults mediocre into leadership.
By virtue of their proximity to the grassroots, it can be argued that this position should
make LGCs impact on their citizenry, especially under civilian rule. However, the narrative
shows that their leading personnel, policy outcomes and political/administrative environments
present debit entry on the balance sheet. The extent to which they satisfy the yearnings of the
populace is open to debate and the Nigerian situation has been laid bare as the foregoing analysis
testifies. However, to judge LGCs by standard set by “national inspectorate” gives a connotation
of local administration. This presents a view of local government as field administration,
deconcentration or administrative decentralization. Local governments in this sense become
agents of the central government, devoid of autonomy; financial and human resources
independence; and they lack legal personality as core attributes of devolution which is the
essence and ideal of a functional local government system. The trajectory of local government
administration in Nigeria shows that these essentials of devolution have been absent and partly
explains the failure of LGCs to live to their billings. It is consistent with good reasoning that for
Nigeria to achieve the development it aspires for, and this must be qualified as people centered
with trickling effects, the country must travel the route of recognizing the compelling or
indispensable functions of the third tier of governance, thus capacitating them for efficient
service delivery reflecting in the much desired dividends of democracy. Only through these
propositions can Sharpe (1970) make meaning to the lives of the average Nigerians.
3.1 Empirical Review
There are two ways communities participate in development projects according to
Ghazalaand Vijayendra (2003), Community Based Development (CBD) and its more recent
variant, Community Driven Development (CDD), are among the fastest growing mechanisms for
channeling development assistance. To clarify concepts‟, CBD is an umbrella term that refers to
projects which actively include beneficiaries in their design and management. CDD is a term,
originally coined by World Bank that refers to CBD projects where communities have direct
control over key projects as well as the management of investment funds.
According to Asia Development Bank Publication (2009), Community-Driven
Development (CDD) refers to an approach in development projects whereby investment funds or
resources are disbursed directly to communities. These funds are then used to design, implement,
operate, and maintain infrastructure and associated services. Communities themselves set
priorities with the help of governments, donors, consultants, technical advisors, facilitators, and
Non-Governmental Organizations‟ (NGOs) (Green, 2008).
Conceptually, the key assumption of the CDD approach is that communities know what is
best for them, and if properly guided making. Economic theory and CDD approach proponents
suggest that outcomes are likely to be more relevant, effective, and sustainable with more top-
down approaches or arrangements involving government officials or outside experts who are not
directly affected by infrastructure intervention. CDD is considered as subset of the much broader
Community Based Development (CBD) approach, which encompasses a wide range of projects
that actively include beneficiaries in their design, management, and implementation. The level of
community participation in CBD projects can vary, from simple information sharing, to social,
economic and political empowerment of community groups.
Various studies by the World Bank and other international development institutions, as
well as independent organizations, have also shown the immense contribution of such
participatory approaches in enhancing the sustainability of small-scale infrastructure and in
ensuring the responsiveness of sub projects to the needs of the poor.
Summary of the Chapter
The Constitution of Republic the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the relevant
government legislation facilitate interaction between the communities and municipalities by
among others creating an environment which is conducive for ongoing communication between
the two parties the community participation approach as envisaged in the policy and legislative
framework entrenches the culture of participatory democracy and enhance cooperative
governance.
Local government gestation also mandates municipalities to work in partnership with the
pubic by providing a platform to influence the budgetary processes. A culture of democratic
governance must be encouraged in light of developmental local government in order to facilitate
this process, proper structures/mechanisms must be put in pace to ensure that the public can
participate in a meaningful process. Local municipalities must utilize the opportunities presented
by national government to ensure that the not the notion on “bringing government closer to
people” is affected.
