Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga

West Municipality

MSc Programme in Urban Management and Development

Rotterdam, The Netherlands
September 2013

Thesis
Title: FACTORS INFLUENCING STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN THE
STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS: A CASE OF GA WEST MUNICIPALITY, GHANA

Name: JEMIMA LOMOTEY

Supervisor: FORBES DAVIDSON
UMD 9

i
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

MASTER’S PROGRAMME IN URBAN MANAGEMENT AND

DEVELOPMENT

(October 2012 – September 2013)

Title
FACTORS INFLUENCING STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN
THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS: A CASE OF GA WEST
MUNICIPALITY, GHANA

Name
JEMIMA LOMOTEY
Country
GHANA

Specialisation: INTGETRATED PLANNING AND URBAN

STRATEGIES

Supervisor: FORBES DAVIDSON

UMD 9 Report number:

Rotterdam, September 2013

ii
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Summary
Participation has become a very important tool for the facilitation of development efforts.
Various development agencies, governments and Non-governmental organisations have
employed participation in its planning and implementation of development interventions.
This has been because of the perceived benefits of participation which includes but not
limited to improvement of participants’ capacities, skills and knowledge due to continues
interactions and involvement in various development activities. Participation helps build
strategic alliances and networks to support programme and projects implementation. Besides,
participation helps improve decisions, development of better policies, plans and programmes
that are practicable to local people. It is believed to promote ownership for sustainable
development because decisions are taken based on broad consensus.
It is most of the time assumed that stakeholders would participate automatically because they
understand the benefit of development and the participatory process. But theory posits that
other factors also influence participation, given especially the voluntary nature of
participation. This study viewed participation as a means or a tool for organising, promoting
and mobilising people as creative problem solvers. The focus was therefore on participatory
planning process for the formulation of District Medium Term Development Plans (MTDP)
or Strategic Spatial Plans (SSP) in the Ga West Municipality of Ghana.
The main objective of the study was to understand and map out factors that influence the
quality of participation in the strategic planning process. The research therefore delves into
the factors that influence participation in the planning process and also investigated
stakeholder mobilisation strategies, actions to facilitate self-organised initiatives and how it
influence participation.
The findings indicated that, indeed a lot of factors influence stakeholder participation in the
strategic planning process. The provision of adequate financial resources and its timely
release was perceived as the most influential because, respondents perceived funding as
having a rippling effect on other factors including the number of stakeholders that are invited.
It was stated that 35-40 stakeholders are invited to Zonal council planning meetings which in
the view of respondents is not representative in a multi-stakeholder environment. The
inadequate funding was tied to the delays in the payment of incentives, especially financial
incentives like travelling and transport as well as sitting allowances. The study revealed that
the Local government pay different incentives depending on the location of a meeting and
this very much influence participation. The commitment of top management was also
perceived as a very influential factor. The leadership is not very involved in the process and
therefore funding, implementation of agreed strategies and the involvement of representative
stakeholders is lacking. The inability to implement projects was a major factor that is
believed to be discouraging effective participation. This situation is further increasing the
distrust citizens have for the local government. The limited stakeholder involvement, inability
to implement agreed strategies and its attendant distrust is becoming a vicious cycle which if
not checked would jeopardise the already fragile participatory process.
The research also revealed that Local government does not adequately mobilise stakeholders
to participate. There is no comprehensive stakeholder list that is representative of all
stakeholder groups that need to be involved. Documents and information on the process are
not made available to stakeholders. Sensitisation is done during the planning meetings
especially at the Zonal Council level planning activities. This was perceived as constraining
participation as well as its quality. Cultural believes and values were however perceived as
not at all influential because in the urban setting there were no dominant cultural practices
iii
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

and believes. The occupation or employment of stakeholders were perceived as slightly

influential on participation.
It was also found that, some communities are self-organising and initiating projects which are
called self-help projects. The main supports given by the local government are financial and
technical advice. This not withstanding however, the local authority is unable to adequately
facilitate and support such initiatives. Requests for supports are delayed some for over two
years; this was the experience of a traditional leader who I interviewed.
On effective participation it was found that stakeholders are participating effectively at the 5th
and 6th typology of Pretty (1995) which are functional participation and interactive
participation. These notwithstanding stakeholders are not at all influential when it comes to
the allocation of financial resources for programmes and projects implementation. On
perceived ownership of the strategic spatial plan, respondents accepted ownership but could
not assert fully that the document contained a lot of local knowledge.

Key words: Development planning, Self-help projects, Zonal Councils, Assembly

members, participatory planning, Unit committees, financial incentives.

Acknowledgements
It is important to acknowledge and thank God almighty for taking me through the one year
masters programme. I also want to extend a debt of gratitude to the Netherlands Government
for supporting people from developing countries to have the opportunity of pursuing higher
education of which I am a beneficiary. I was able to enrol in the master programme in urban
development and management at the Erasmus University Rotterdam due to the fellowship.
I also owe a debt of gratitude to my supervisor, Mr. Forbes Davidson, for putting at my
disposal his more expert knowledge and also taking time to read through the write up. I think
I can confidently say I had one of the best supervisors and his constructive criticisms and
clear cut directions and suggestions has tremendously shape the final output of the thesis.
God richly bless you, Forbes.
During the course, I had the opportunity of being updated on invaluable knowledge in various
theories and practices from very qualified lecturers of the Institute of Housing and Urban
Development Studies (HIS) Erasmus University and other well known universities. Also the
lecturers of the specialisation, Integrated Planning and Urban Strategies (IPUS), you have
made a great impact in my profession. To the non-teaching staff of HIS, I say thank you.
To my children, Godfried Nii Obli Lomotey, Joel Tetteh Lomotey and Enoch Lomokwei
Lomotey, I say thank you so much for being patient with me and carrying on in love during
my one year studies abroad. God bless you my lovely boys. To my husband Mr. G. S.
Lomotey I say God bless you for being with the children, I appreciate it so much.
I also want to thank my wonderful family members for their unflinching support in kind and
in cash. I would like to mention my sisters WO1 Stella Ainooson King, Florence Ainooson
Ponedong and Cynthia Ainooson Dartey. My dear sisters, you were always ready to provide
my needs and that of the children continuously. Words cannot express how grateful I am. My
father, Mr. G. K. Ainooson cannot be forgotten, he was always available to offer any support,
Daddy you would always be on my heart. My Mummy Alice Oberibea, you have been
wonderful. My dear ones, Uncle Tony, Uncle Lambert and Uncle Sammy thank you so much
for the wonderful support.

iv
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

To my dear friend Vincent Akrofi, you really touched my heart with so much kindness, God
reward you immensely for all the support. Also, my colleagues from Ghana in the same
programme (UMD 9), Randy, Joshua. Eva, Charles, Joseph, Sammy and Ismaila I say thank
you for the friendship we shared. I cannot forget the support of the following special people,
Honourable J. K. Sackey. G. G. Ackah, Frank Niikoi, Lilian Baeka, Isaac N. Biney, Sammuel
Laweh, Seth Kpojji and Francis Nunoo. To all the staff and Assembly members of Ga West
Municipal Assembly, I am grateful for your support and corporation during data collection.
GOD BLESS ALL OF YOU!!!

Abbreviation
ANT - Actor Network Theory
CBOs - Civic Society Organisations
DACF - District Assembly Common Fund
DFID - Department for International Development
DPCU - District Planning Coordinating Unit
FBOs - Faith Based Organisations
GPRTU - Ghana Private Roads Transport Unit
ICT - Information Communication Technology
IHS - Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies
JHS - Junior High School
MCE - Municipal Chief Executive
MCD - Municipal Coordinating Director
MPCU - Municipal Planning Coordinating Unit
MTDP - Medium Term Development Plan
NDPC - National Development Planning Commission
NEPAD - New Partnership for Africa’s Development
NGOs - Non Governmental Organisation
RCC - Regional Coordinating Council
SPSS - Statistical Package for Social Sciences
SSP - Strategic Spatial Planning
T&T - Travelling and Transport
UN - United Nations

v
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Table of Contents
Summary................................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................iv
Abbreviation.............................................................................................................................v
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..…vii
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………..….viii
CHAPTER 1: Introduction.....................................................................................................1
1.0 Background............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Problem Statement................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Research Objectives .............................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Significance of the study ....................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Scope and Limitation............................................................................................................. 5
1.6 Decentralization and Local Governance – Ghana ................................................................. 5
1.7 Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 6
1.8 Decentralized Planning System ........................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review ...........................................................................................9
2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Theory of Participation.......................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Conceptual Definition - Participation................................................................................................. 10
2.2 Stakeholder Defined ............................................................................................................ 11
2.3 Typologies of Participation ................................................................................................. 12
2.3.1 Arnstien (1969) - Ladders of Participation ................................................................................... 13
2.3.2 Pretty (1995) - Typology .............................................................................................................. 13
2.4 Participation as a Means or an End ..................................................................................... 15
2.5 Factors that Influence Participation ..................................................................................... 16
2.6 Self-Organization - Concept................................................................................................ 17
2.7 Theoretical definitions - Strategic Planning ........................................................................ 18
2.7.1 Characteristics of Strategic Planning ............................................................................................ 19
2.7.2 Strategic Planning Process – The Four-track approach ................................................................ 20
2.8 Conceptual Framework – Stakeholder Participation ........................................................... 21
2.9 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER THREE – Research Methodology....................................................................24
3.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 24
3.1 Revised Research Questions................................................................................................ 25
3.2 Research Type, Approach and Strategy............................................................................... 25
3.3 Selection of Study Area....................................................................................................... 26
3.4 Sample size and Selection ................................................................................................... 26
3.5 Validity and Reliability ....................................................................................................... 26
3.6 Operationalization of Variables and Indicators ................................................................... 27
3.7 Data Sources........................................................................................................................ 30
3.7.1 Primary Data Sources ................................................................................................................... 30
3.7.2 Secondary Data Sources ............................................................................................................... 30
3.8 Data Collection Methods and Instruments .......................................................................... 31
3.9 Data Processing and Analysis Methods............................................................................... 31
CHAPTER FOUR – Research Analysis and Findings .......................................................32
4.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 32
4.1 The Planning process and how it operates in the Study Area.............................................. 32
vi
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

4.2 Description of Sample ......................................................................................................... 35

4.3 Demographic Profile of Respondents.................................................................................. 36
4.3.1 Semi-structured Interviews ................................................................................................................ 36
4.3.2 Survey ................................................................................................................................................ 37
4.3.3 Demographic Profile - Implication for the Study .................................................................... 38
4.4 Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation..................................................................... 38
4.4.1 Organisational Context Factors..................................................................................................... 38
4.4.2 Socio-economic Factors................................................................................................................ 42
4.4.3 Process Factors ............................................................................................................................. 44
4.5 Stakeholder Mobilisation..................................................................................................... 49
4.6 Facilitation and Integration of Self organised Initiatives .................................................... 52
4.7 Effective Stakeholder Participation ..................................................................................... 55
4.7.1 Stakeholder Influence on Decisions.............................................................................................. 58
CHAPTER FIVE – Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................60
5.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 60
5.1 Quality of Participation in the Planning Process – General Conclusion ............................. 60
5.2 Factors that Influence stakeholder Participation.................................................................. 61
5.3 Stakeholder Mobilisation..................................................................................................... 62
5.4 Actions to integrate and facilitate Self-organised Initiatives............................................... 62
5.5 Effectiveness of Stakeholder Participation.......................................................................... 63
5.6 Implications for Planning Policy - Ghana .......................................................................... 63
5.7 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 64
REFERNCES .........................................................................................................................65
Appendices..............................................................................................................................68
Appendix 1: Map of the Study Area, Ga West Municipality ........................................................... 68
Appendix 2: Decentralized planning System - Ghana...................................................................... 69
Appendix 3: Plan preparatory process – Summary of activities and stakeholder participation ....... 70
Apendix 4: Research Design and Methodology with time lines ...................................................... 71
Appendix 5: selection of Respondents - Sample .............................................................................. 72
Appendix 6: Phases of Data collection and linkages with respondents............................................ 73
Appendix 7: Sample of Questionnaires ............................................................................................ 74
Appendix 8: Sample of Semi-structured Interview instrument ........................................................ 80
Appendix 9: Interview Guide ........................................................................................................... 83
Appendix 10: Pictures of interviews and focus group discussions................................................... 85

List of Tables
Table 1: Pretty (1995) Typology of participation ................................................................................................................ 14
Table 2: Operationalisation of Variables and Indicators ...................................................................................................28
Table 3: Sample Description ................................................................................................................................................. 36
Table 4: Demographic characteristics - Interview Respondents........................................................................................ 37
Table 5: Demographic Characteristics - Survey Respondents ........................................................................................... 37
Table 6: Budget for the Participatory Planning Process - 2010 ......................................................................................... 40
Table 7: Test of significance.................................................................................................................................................. 45
Table 8: List of self-organised initiatives (2010-2011).........................................................................................................52
Table 9: Actions to integrate self-organised Initiatives.......................................................................................................53
Table 10: Financial support for self-help projects 2010-2013 ............................................................................................ 54
Table 11: Test of significance - Payment of Incentives .......................................................................................................57

vii
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

List of Figures
Figure 1: Local Government Structures ................................................................................................................................6
Figure 2: Ga West Municipality Location Map ....................................................................................................................7
Figure 3: Karol Wojtyla's theory of participation .............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 4: Ladder of participation.........................................................................................................................................13
Figure 5: Conceptual Framework - Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation ....................................................... 22
Figure 6: Research Design and Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 7: Data Triangulation ................................................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 8: Focus of the study – Decentralised Planning system .......................................................................................... 33
Figure 9: Participatory process – Stakeholder consultation and collaboration networks ............................................... 34
Figure 10: Actual Participatory process - Stakeholder consultation and collaboration networks..................................35
Figure 11: Influence of organisational factors on participation......................................................................................... 39
Figure 12: Influence of Socio-economic factors on participation....................................................................................... 43
Figure 13: Influence of process factors on participation ....................................................................................................45
Figure 14: Influence of stakeholder mobilisation on participation.................................................................................... 49
Figure 15: Budgetary allocation and actual releases - Self-help Projects 2010-2013 ....................................................... 54
Figure 16: Influence of actions to integrate Self-help projects........................................................................................... 54
Figure 17: Stakeholders participating regularly in planning meetings ............................................................................. 55
Figure 18: Specific involvement of stakeholders in the participatory process ..................................................................57
Figure 19: Stakeholder perceived influence......................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 20: Stakeholder perceived ownership of the strategic plan .................................................................................... 59
Figure 21: Recommended interventions to improve quality and effective participation ................................................. 64

viii
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

CHAPTER 1: Introduction
1.0 Background
Stakeholder participation in public affairs such as the planning process has long been
recognised and promoted worldwide by Governments, Non-governmental Organisations
(NGOs), United Nations (UN) and the World Bank. To be specific, the UN declaration of
Human Rights (1948) emphasized participation by all segments of people in the decision
making process as a right. Participation has therefore been a major theme in development
discourse for the past 50 years. Even though stakeholder participation has had some criticism
(Cleaver, 1999), arguments for enhanced Participatory initiatives often rest on the benefits of
the process and its outcome and the assertion that, policies formulated would be practicable
and locally accepted hence sustainability would be achieved, (Irvin and Stansburg, 2004;
Bishop and Davis, 2002; Landry, 2007).
This means that, people who have legitimate concern about the development of a place
should be involved in the processes that produce the plan for the development of that place.
In addition, urban areas are essentially dynamic with complex spatial challenges that require
collaborative efforts. This complexity, Healey, (2007, p.viii) explains that ‘’it is a mixture of
nodes and networks, places and flows, in which multiple relations, activities and values co-
exist, interact, combine, conflict, oppress and generate creative synergy’’. This synergy, she
argues ‘’centers around collective action, both in formal government arenas and informal
mobilisation efforts’’. This collective action, whether government initiated or self organised
at the community level should enhance effective stakeholder involvement for the promotion
or maintenance of places on a sustainable basis. The increasing complexity of urban
development and shift in power of actors involved in spatial planning has also brought to the
fore the recognition of self-organised civic groups and the critical role they play in urban
governance.
The conception of urban areas as complex in nature requires flexible strategic planning
approaches. The strategic spatial plan formulation process, it is believed should be based on
broad knowledge and harness local experiences and consensus building to develop strategic
objectives and targets that are relevant and practicable to stakeholders, (Cooke and Kothari,
2001). D'hondt, (2011p. 21) state it more specifically that ‘every community has unique
qualities that should help to define and shape the community’s vision. Pre-formatted plans
and planning processes cannot harness this unique variety’. This implies that top-down
approaches to plan formulation cannot solve urban problems and government policy makers
and planners would have to adopt bottom-up approaches to urban spatial development. It is
through this mechanism that policy makers can network creative individuals; formulate plans
based on broad knowledge and consensus building and as a result ownership and
commitment from both government and stakeholders can be achieved.
Ghana, before 1988 operated a centralized system of planning where development plans were
formulated without the participation or involvement of stakeholders (Gyampo, 2012). The
programmes and projects in the plans became outdated before implementation was completed
(Botchie, 2000). These centrally formulated strategic plans did not help to adapt development
decisions to local conditions. In recognition of this development challenge, a comprehensive
local government and decentralization reforms were initiated as an alternative development
strategy (Government of Ghana, 2010).
It is therefore, the recognition of the benefits of stakeholder participation in development, that
the Government of Ghana through its local government structures is promoting stakeholder
1
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

participation in its strategic spatial planning process. Ghana is currently implementing a

decentralised system of planning where local government authorities have the mandate to
facilitate the formulation of 4-year strategic development plans called Medium Term
Development Plans (MTDP). The plan formulation processes must be participatory as
enshrined in the Local Government Act 1993, Act 462 which also establishes
Metropolitan/Municipal/District Assemblies as planning authorities in the areas of their
jurisdiction.
The National Development Planning (system) Act, 1994 Act 480 also defines and regulates
planning procedures and emphasis the participatory approach to the formulation of MTDP.
The National development Planning Commission (NDPC) in line with the Act 480 prescribes
the procedures, format and content of development plans for local authorities by issuing
development planning guidelines.
The planning guidelines have as its major tenet stakeholder participation in the strategic
planning processes. The stages in the planning processes where stakeholder participation are
expected are well elaborated in the planning guidelines. This participatory approach to
planning, the Commission believes should be encouraged to ensure collective ownership and
sustainable implementation of projects and programmes.

Ownership and sustainability are very critical at a time when Ghana is dealing with massive
urban periphery settlements due to rapid urbanisation, especially in the capital city of Accra.
The city of Accra and its functional urban areas including the Ga West Municipality are
facing complex urban problems such as pollution, traffic congestion, poor environmental and
waste management, inadequate housing resulting in informal settlements and unemployment
issues to mention but a few. It is therefore imperative for government to facilitate the active
involvement of stakeholders to achieve the desired future on sustainable basis.

As stated earlier on, the study area, Ga West Municipality is a functional urban area of the
city of Accra but is administratively not under the mayor of Accra. The municipality is fast
urbanising with its associated demand for urban services and infrastructure. The
municipality’s local government under the decentralised planning process have developed
several four-year medium term development plans since 1994 The core influencing factor
was the lack of commitment of top management which is linked to the other factors to
address present and future demands for local services and infrastructure. It adopts
participatory processes or approaches in line with the planning guidelines with the objective
of soliciting active stakeholder participation in goal formulation, selection of key strategic
interventions and implementation.

1.1 Problem Statement

The benefits of stakeholder participation has been researched extensively and acknowledged in
the academic literature. Van Djik, (2006, p 71) states that ‘participation not only makes programs
and policies more acceptable they make them cost-effective and enhances the feeling of
ownership’.

The concept of a decentralised integrated planning system in Ghana prescribed for local
government authorities emphasize a participatory approach. The planning laws and regulations
make it mandatory for stakeholders to actively participate in the processes to ensure ownership of
the plans. Local government authorities are therefore vehicles for local mobilisation and agents
2
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

for local development in partnership with stakeholders. The structure of the local government
system also facilitates the involvement of stakeholders at the lowest level which is the unit
committee to the sub-local government level of the urban and Zonal Councils.
Unfortunately however, it is reported that most local government authorities have not been able to
involve stakeholders actively in their planning processes as envisaged. The National
Development Planning Commission puts it this way ‘’ the 1996-2000 Guidelines focused
primarily on the regulatory framework and institutional functions within the planning system.
In the event, some weaknesses and challenges emerged in their use. These include how to
improve prioritization and stakeholder participation in the planning as well as strengthening
procedures and mechanisms for the preparation and implementation of plans and
programmes’’ NDPC ( 2001, p 5). Besides, Ofei-Aboagye, (2011, p.139) note that, ‘there is not
enough involvement of locals in spite of the legal requirements for public hearing and ‘bottom-
up’ planning”. The author further states that “communities suggest that very selective processes
have been adopted; few civil society groups have been involved and those who have contributed
to the process could not represent the poor”. This situation bring to the fore Cleaver (1999, p.605)
statement that ‘’it is assumed that people will automatically participate due to the potential
benefit or social responsibility, that is the interest of the community as a whole’’.

Thus the assumption of getting the legal and policy framework right and adopting bottom-up
approach to planning does not necessarily result in effective participation. There may be other
factors that influence participation that needs to be explored and explained. The Ga West
Municipal Assembly is one of the local government authorities in the Greater Accra Region of
Ghana and has a long experience of employing participatory approach to planning. The
municipality has some challenges with regards to participation of stakeholders in its planning
process. The engagement of stakeholders has been weak and participation at the various
consultative meetings and public hearings are not encouraging. The implication of the
continuation of this trend on urban development is the decline in faith in local governance and the
straining of efforts of the Municipal Assembly to address present and future infrastructure and
service demand. This municipality is the case for this study.

1.2 Research Objectives

GENERAL
The general objective of the research is to understand and map out the factors that influence
the quality of stakeholder participation in the strategic planning process. What actually
motivates or constraints peoples involvement in the planning process and how does it affect
the process and its output?

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE
1. To understand the nature of the participatory planning process
2. To identify the factors that influence stakeholder participation in the planning process
3. To understand how the local authority prepares stakeholders to generate their interest
and be involved.
4. To explore how self-organized initiatives are supported/integrated into the Assembly
planning process for urban development.
5. To assess the nature, level of participation and the extent of stakeholder influence on
decisions

3
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

1.3 Research Questions

MAIN QUESTION
The main question that the research seeks to answer is: what factors influence effective
participation of stakeholders in the planning process in the study area?
Sub-questions
 How does the participatory process operate in the municipality?
 What factors influence stakeholder participation in the strategic planning process?
 How does the local authority mobilize stakeholder to participate effectively?
 What actions does the local government take to facilitate and integrate self-organized
initiatives for urban spatial development and does it influence participation?
 How effective is stakeholder participation in the planning process and how do they
influence decisions?

1.4 Significance of the study

The significance of the study cannot be over emphasised, especially in the era when
stakeholder participation in development is strongly associated with the achievement of
sustainable development. The Government of Ghana has adopted a decentralised planning
system with the aim of getting governance to the ‘door-steps’ of its citizens. The planning
process is one of the critical policy areas to promote stakeholder participation in decision-
making and the policy choices that affect them directly or indirectly.
This study is very important because it contributes to the existing knowledge of what
motivates stakeholders’ to participate in the planning process. The knowledge can contribute
to make participation process more attractive and successful especially in the study area. It is
important to state that not much research focuses on factors that influence participation and
their importance. The findings of this research would be an input into policy discussions in
Ghana, especially when the National Development Planning Commission is very concerned
about how to ensure maximum or effective participation of stakeholders’ in the planning
process. The Commission would understand what is preventing theory from being translated
into practice rather than focusing on getting the guidelines and policies right.
Besides, the study provide direct answers or empirical findings of the factors influencing
stakeholder participation in the municipality for the Local Government Authority of the study
area to learn from its best practices and also improve upon the restraining factors to
participatory initiatives.
Finally, my choice to study local governance and participation in the planning process has
been motivated by my experiences as a local government staff and the need to contribute to
the development of local governance in my country. I believe that not everybody can be part
of government, but everybody can be part of governance and active participation in the
planning process is a key governance function that all stakeholders must be given the
opportunity to be part of.

4
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

1.5 Scope and Limitation

The coverage of the research is on factors that influence stakeholders to get involved in
participatory initiatives, how they are involved in the planning processes and how stakeholder
involvement support the quality of the process. The Ga West Municipality is the case study of
this research.
The research cover one planning period, that is the 2010-2013 planning period and the
guidelines for the preparation of the Medium Term Development Plans is extensively
deployed. This is because it provides the framework for the formulation of the MTDP or
Strategic Spatial Plan (SSP), and prescribes to some level how stakeholders should be
involved. It is important to state that MTDP and SSP are used interchangeably in this study.
The various planning activities and the factors that enable stakeholders to participation are
extensively investigated. The research does not cover participation at the plan
implementation, monitoring and evaluation stages of the planning cycle. In order to produce
good research work in the limited time available, the study concentrated on key stakeholders
as defined by the NDPC at the following levels of local governance:
 Municipal Assembly ( The central administration and its decentralised departments)
 Sub-local government level (Urban or Zonal Councils members)
 Community level (Unit committees and traditional leaders)
The research is limited in scope because it focused only on the plan formulation phase
without delving into implementation of interventions and monitoring and evaluation. As such
data collection and analysis was largely based on the participatory initiatives adopted until
the plan is finally approved by the general Assembly. In this vein the findings of the research
is limited to the phases of the 2010 to 2013 planning period.
Also collecting primary data from the local government institution as well as the community
representatives was not an easy task. This was further constrained by the limited time for data
collection. Also at the time of data collection some department heads who had participated in
the process have been transferred. Also, the elections of new Assembly and unit committee
members in 2011 has brought in new Assembly members who had not participated in the
process. The above mentioned limitations culminated in my not being able to administer all
the survey questionnaires, because most of the key stakeholders who have participated in the
planning process were no more in the municipality. Also, the local government authority
does not involve NGOs and CBOs in the process, so none could be interviewed. This
however did not significantly affect the research because the main respondents for the
interviews were available to talk to, that is the in-depth discussions with 22 respondents.

1.6 Decentralization and Local Governance – Ghana

There has been increasing focus on local governance in recent years due to globalisation and
the re-definition of the role of the state (Alam, 2011). As such decentralization reforms have
taken place and are still taking place all over the world albeit with some variations. Ghana
embarked on decentralization in 1988 for a more participatory approach to development. The
decentralization programme is to enhance and provide an effective response to the challenge
of local development as a result of the top down planning process (Botchie, 2000) and there
by facilitate the effective involvement of local people in the decision making process.
The decentralization programme has the support of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution and is
comprehensively spelt out in the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462). Local government
is the lowest level of government and is the closet to citizens with a critical role of facilitating
5
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

development. The Act creates a four tier Metropolitan Assemblies and three tier Municipal
and District Assemblies. The Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies have overall
responsibility for the development of the areas under their jurisdiction. Section 10, subsection
a (1) of the Local Government Act, 1993, makes the local government responsible for the
overall development of the district and to ensure the preparation and submission to the NDPC
development plans of the district.
It is important to note that Metropolitan and Municipal Assemblies are in charge of urban
areas whiles the District Assemblies governs rural communities. The details of the local
government structures are given in figure 1. For effective governance at the local level, sub-
local government structures are created and reach as far as the community level. These
structures form the rallying point for citizens’ participation and involvement in all public
decision-making processes. Owusu and Afutu-Kotey, (2010, p.24) puts it that
‘’decentralization brings government to the governed both spatially and institutionally’’.
Ahwoi, (2011, p.40) however warns that decentralization ‘’could weaken support for
nationally and centrally defined priorities and central government could lose power and
control over the country‘’. These notwithstanding decentralisation positions local
governments to understand urban complexities and dynamics through constant interaction
with stakeholders. This positions local governments to be potentially more responsive to the
needs of urban people.

Figure 1: Local Government Structures

Regional Co-ordinating Council

Metropolitan Assembly Municipal Assembly District Assembly

Sub-metropolitan
Assembly

Town/Area Councils Zonal Councils Urban /Town/Area Councils

Unit Committees

Source: (Boachie-Danquah, 2011))

1.7 Study Area

The study area is locally governed by the Ga West Municipal Assembly which is responsible
for the overall development of the Municipality through the formulation, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation of development plans, programmes and projects. The Ga West
Municipal Assembly was carved out of the erstwhile Ga District which was created in 1988

6
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

in pursuance of the government decentralization and local government reform policy with a
head quarters located at Amasaman (see figure 2 and appendix 1 for location map).

Figure 2: Ga West Municipality Location Map

Source:www.mapsofworld.com/ghana/google

It is one of the sixteen (16) Assemblies in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. It lies within
latitude 5048’ North 5039’ North. The population of the municipality according to the 2010
National Population and Housing Census is 262,742 with growth a rate of 3.4% (Ghana
Statistical Service, 2012). The municipality is rapidly urbanising as a result of its closeness to
the capital city Accra where there is a lot of inflow of migrant workers. The location of this
municipality is one of the major potentials for private sector investment in the areas of
commerce, service and industry. The municipality is about 25km west of Accra, the National
Capital of Ghana, and have access to all its facilities and services. The municipality occupies
a land area of approximately 305.4 sq km with about 181 urban and peri-urban communities
but the area is predominantly urban (Ga West Municipal Assembly, 2010).

Over the past several years the local economy has seen a significant growth particularly in the
service sector followed by manufacturing and agriculture. A number of economic and
financial services and other infrastructure facilities exist whilst others are being developed to
serve as catalyst for the rapid development of the Municipality. These include
telecommunication and banking services. The Local Government (Ga West Municipal
Assembly) Establishment Instrument, 2004 LI 1587 makes provision for the establishment of
Zonal Councils and Town councils. Currently six Zonal Councils have been established in the
Municipality and these are: Ofankor, Pokuase, Mayera, Amasaman, Ayikai Doblo and
Kotoku Area Councils. The councils serve as rallying points for community mobilisation for
participation in various strategic decisions for spatial development management. The councils
have delegated power through the Municipal Assembly. Some of the urban challenges facing
the municipality include: poor waste disposal management, urban sprawl, poor education
infrastructure, rapid population growth and migration, unemployment especially for the

7
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

youth, poorly maintained urban infrastructure and inadequate housing ((Ga West Municipal
Assembly, 2010)

1.8 Decentralized Planning System

Ghana’s decentralized planning system is within the framework of the (National
Development Planning (Systems) Act, 480, 1994). The Act provides the context within which
stakeholders can participate in the policy formulation and strategic planning processes at the
Metropolitan/Municipal and District Assembly levels. The decentralized planning system
provides spaces for the active participation of sub-district structures, civic society
organisations (CSOs), Non-governmental organisations (NGOs), chiefs, community members
and other interest groups (Government of Ghana, 2010).
The Planning Systems Act confers planning roles at the national level, local government
level, regional coordinating councils, ministries and departments. At the national level the
National Development Planning Commission is in charge of the formulation of policies and
preparation of planning guidelines for local government structures and ministries. This
policies and guidelines are channelled to the Local governments through the technical bodies
of the Regional Coordinating councils (Regional Planning Coordinating Units – RPCU) to
the District or Municipal Assemblies. These documents could also be sent directly to the
Assemblies. The strategic spatial plans are channelled to the NDPC through the RPCU. The
decentralized participatory process as described in Owusu (2004) is illustrated in the
appendix 2 which provides the details of the structure of the decentralised planning system
and channels of communications. The metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies are the
planning authorities (Local Government Act, 462, 1993) at the local government level and
possess deliberative, executive and legislative powers. The Planning Systems Act, section 2
sub-section 1 designates their planning functions to include: Initiate and prepare district
development plans and settlement plans, Carry out studies on resources mobilisation and also
economic, social, spatial, environmental issues and policies in the district and Initiate and
coordinate the process of planning, programming, budgeting and implementation of district
development plans programmes and projects.
It is important to note that Local governments prepare both statutory Land use plans and
MTDPs but the focus of this study is on the later. Discussions with Forbes Davidson of the
Institute of Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS) however indicate that efforts are
underway by the NDPC of Ghana to issue guidelines to facilitate the preparation of the two
plans at the same time. The integration of the MTDP and land use planning would present
new challenges for stakeholder participation. Leadership of local governments and the
DPCUs would again be challenged to facilitate the preparation of these plans in a
participative manner.
The Planning Systems Act section 7 defines the functions of the DPCU among other things to
facilitate strategic plan formulation and decisions on strategic interventions for place making
and maintenance. The plan preparation is based on guidelines issued by the NDPC. Various
activities are specified to be undertaken, and the local government is obliged to involved
stakeholders. The activities include performance review of the previous plan, compilation of
profile and current development situation, harmonisation of district development issues with
national issues and the development of strategies, goals, objectives and programmes.
Appendix 3 summarises activities in the development planning process as given in the
planning guideline (National Development Planning Commission, 2011).

8
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

2.0 Introduction
This chapter delves into definitions and discussions of theories and concepts in the
phenomena under study which is the factors that influence stakeholder participation in the
strategic planning processes. The chapter considers theoretical concepts and how they relate
to the research by various authors that are of importance to the topic under consideration. To
put it more succinctly, Rowe and Frewer, (2005, p. 254) state that ‘’definitions are both the
object of empirical research activity and a requirement for such activity to be effective’’.
The review touches on the theories of participation and some definitions and explanations of
relevant concepts which are the building blocks of theories are reviewed and discussed with
references to the relevant literature. Specifically, the following concepts are discussed:
definition of participation, stakeholder, participation typologies, participation as a means or
an end, factors that influence participation, self-organisation, and strategic planning. The
linkages in these theories and concepts are put together in a conceptual framework to help
understand the phenomenon under study. At the end some conclusions are arrived at to guide
the field work.

2.1 Theory of Participation

The theory of participation underpins this research. In explaining Karol Wojtyla’s theory of
participation, Mejos, (2007, p. 79) states that, ‘’Wojtyla introduced the word participation to
indicate the way in which, in common acting , the person protects the personalistic value of
his own acting and participates together in the realisation of common action and its
outcome’’. That is participation indicates a person’s capacity to interact and act together with
others without losing one’s personal identity and self actualization. Thus people participate or
interact not only to seek their individual good but also the common good. He argues further
that, participation does not just happen but emanates from a person’s purposeful effort for
fulfilment and the realisation that it is impossible to do it alone.
Mejos (2007, p. 80) posit that ‘’as antithesis to alienation, participation allows the person to
maximize his array of experience which will eventually lead him to an even deeper
understanding of himself and others’’. He explains that in participation a person is made to go
into various interpersonal relations and thereby play different roles while pursuing common
goals. This deferent roles and relationships bring about dynamism and add to the growth and
development of the group as well as the individual.
According to (Majos, 2007) Wojtyla’s theory of participation provides two kinds of
participation which are differentiated as authentic and inauthentic attitudes. Authentic
attitudes of participation were given as solidarity and opposition, whiles inauthentic is non-
involvement and conformism. Solidarity was explained as the express unity of the group to
work together to achieve the common good that is the individuals commitment to work
together as group. The opposition attitude is not in connection with the solidarity but a
different mode (Mejos, 2007). The opposition is to contest issues or actions that are contrary
to or would not help in the common good. Conformity attitudes indicate the attitude of going
with the crowd by accepting and not being critical with issues. The characteristics of the non-
involvement attitude according to Mejos, (2007, p. 82) is ‘’man’s absence from the
community’’. It leads to segregated community as people become unconcerned. Figure 4
provides a summary of the theory.

9
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Figure 3: Karol Wojtyla's theory of participation

Non-
Involvement
Solidarity

Authentic Participation Inauthentic

Attitude Attitude

Conformism
Opposition

Source: Developed by author based on Mejos (2007)

2.1.1 Conceptual Definition - Participation

Besides this theory various conceptual definitions of participation are found in the
development literature. It is important to note that, after about five decades of the practice of
participation in development, there is still no commonly agreed understanding of what it
means and lend itself to various definitions. Bishop and Davis, (2002 p. 14) posit that
‘’defining the concept and its boundaries proves a contentious undertaking’’. This
contentious definition makes it also difficult to state what constitutes real participation.
Apart from the challenge of definition, various authors’ use the term participation and modify
it with adjectives to reflect the context or the perspective from which participation was
being described or defined, like citizen’s participation (Arnstein 1969; Bishop and Davis,
2002; and Irvin and Stansburg, 2004), stakeholder participation (Rider and Pahl-Wostl, 2005)
and community participation among others. Most times these terminologies are used
interchangeably.
The definitions given by various theorists are discussed subsequently. Arnstein (1969, p. 216)
defines citizens’ participation as ‘’ the redistribution of power that enables the have-not
citizens presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately
included in the future’’. She explains further that, participation is a strategy for sharing power
and conceptualises it in a ‘’continuum’’ according to Bishop and Davies (2002, p. 16), from
non-participation to ‘’tokenism’’ and ‘’citizens control’’. This definition brings out several
unique features of participation and provides significant understanding of the demand from
the have-nots to share power with the powerful in decision-making regarding resource
allocation, programmes and contracts.
Arnstein’s definition advocates a critical difference between what is described as ‘’empty
ritual of participation’’ Arnstein (1969, p. 216) and the actual power needed to influence
outcomes of decisions. For her, any participation that does not challenge power relations is
not participation, that is, ‘’participation without redistribution of power is an empty
frustrating process for the powerless’’ Arnstein (1969, p. 216). Bishop and Davis (2002) posit
10
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

that Arnstein writes from the perspective of citizen activist and is therefore doubtful about
establishing participatory approaches in existing political structures and any participation
which does not transfer power is token. Bishop and Davis (2002) argue further that this
perception of participation has serious analytical problems when seeking to comprehend the
role of participation in the policy process. They also disagree on the grounds that, Arnstein’s
unspecified but powerful attachment to direct democracy, made her reject as simple tokenism
what can pass for participation in policy making. They however acknowledge that conceiving
citizens participation in a continuum, make participation not a single act but an array of
possibilities.
In their definition, Bishop and Davis, (2002, p. 14) state that ‘’participation is the expectation
that citizens have a voice in policy choices’’. This definition brings to the fore a sharing of
power between the governed and the government, a contrast from Arnstein call for transfer of
power. On the other hand, Rider and Pahl-Wostl, (2005, p. 188) define participation in the
context of project implementation as ‘’ all activities that are planned and carried out by or in
co-operation with local government’’. In this context as well, sharing of power is the focus
and local government is seen as the facilitator of the process.
In addition to these definitions, Rowe and Frewer, (2005, p. 253) state that participation is
‘’the practice of involving members of the public in the agenda setting, decision making, and
policy formulation activities of organisation/Institution responsible for policy development’’.
This definition they claim only few people would argue about but the issue is how to make a
clear distinction between involving the public at large and specific stakeholder groups. This
argument stem from the fact that many discussions on public participation leaves out the
element of cost (Irvin and Stansburg, 2004), that is, an extensive public participation process
may take resources from the organisation and reduce actual project achievement on the
ground. This review has shed some light on the varying definitions of the concept
participation. Most of the definitions touched on the fact that it is the sharing of power
between government and stakeholders, and the issue of participation in the context of policy
formulation process.
In this study I adopt the definition of Rowe and Frewer (2005) and applied the concept the
way Ansell and Gash (2007, p. 546) apply Stakeholder involvement which is “both the
participation of citizens as individuals and to the participation of organised groups’’. It also
refers to public agencies even though they play a dual role of initiators and facilitators of the
participatory process (ibid).

2.2 Stakeholder Defined

Literature on the concept stakeholder has emerged from three critical areas, which are
organisational management, public policy and International development projects. From the
policy perspective, stakeholder engagement is to design policies that are sensitive to the
needs of local people and also to promote active participation and transparency in decision
making process. On the other hand, the organisational management literature looks at who is
important from the firm or business perspective (Freeman, 2004). In the context of
International development project, the focus is on identifying those who are affected by the
project or intervention and ensure their involvement.
Bryson (2004, p. 22) defines stakeholder from the public policy and international
development perspective as ‘’persons, groups or organisations that must somehow be taken
into account by leaders, managers and front-line staff’’. He argues further, after a review of
11
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

some other definitions that stakeholders should not be only those with power to affect
policies, but a ‘’ broader array of people, groups or organisations including normally the
powerless’’ (ibid). The argument is that stakeholder support is needed to ensure long-term
prospect of organisations as well as policies, plans and programmes (Bryson, 2004).
Besides this, the literature on international development projects focuses on those affected by
development interventions. Thus, the World Bank (1996, p. 125) defines stakeholders as
‘’those who are affected by the outcome-positively or negatively- or those who can affect the
outcome of proposed interventions’’. That is, the initiators of participatory processes have the
task of identifying the relevant stakeholders for the development issue at stake. This implies
that getting the expected results depends much on the ability to identify who would be
affected and those who can affect project outcomes (World Bank, 1996). The Department for
International Development (DFID, 2003) gives another dimension by categorising three types
of stakeholders as follows:
1. Key stakeholders – referred to as those who can significantly influence the success or
otherwise of an intervention
2. Primary stakeholders – are individuals or groups who are ultimately affected
positively or adversely
3. Secondary stakeholders – all other individuals or institutions with an interest or a
stake in an activity
DFID however argues that, in reality the categorisation may overlap. From the organisational
management perspective, Freeman (2004) views stakeholders as those groups who are critical
to the continued existence and success of the organisation. This recent definition has however
been criticised for focusing on the organisation, in this vein those in academia and
practitioners prefer, Freeman, (1984, p. 25) which posit that stakeholders are ‘’any group or
individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives’’. From
the foregoing, it can be said that stakeholder are individuals, groups or institutions who can
affect or can be affected by the outcomes of policy decisions.

 Stakeholder Mobilisation
Stakeholder mobilisation is seen as critical to encouraging citizens to participate. It is a
process of getting stakeholders ready, aware and interested in participation and more
importantly being involved. The process includes stakeholder analysis which is the decision
as to who should be involved when and how (Bryson 2004). This process it is believed
should result in a list of classified stakeholders including key, primary and secondary
depending on the influence and resources. Other issues in the mobilisation process include
informing stakeholders, establishing roles and mobilising interest and involvement.

2.3 Typologies of Participation

We have been able to review some definitions of participation and have summarised some
elements that seem common in the definitions. The typologies developed by two authors are
reviewed to help illustrate the point that there are important gradations in stakeholder
participation. The typologies also show effectiveness or the extent of stakeholder influence
over policy decisions.

12
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

2.3.1 Arnstien (1969) - Ladders of Participation

The work of Arnstein (1969) on different levels of participation has had a great influence on
understanding participation. The concept of ladder of participation provides a continuum of
eight levels of participation from no participation to tokenism and then to citizen’s control.
For Arnstein, the first five (5) levels of the rung does not represent participation and therefore
citizens engaged at that level are not participating. It is only from the sixth rung upwards that
some meaningful or effective participation begins to emerge. The ladder is presented in figure
4 below.
Figure 4: Ladder of participation

Source: Arnstein (1969)

 Criticism of Arnstien Ladder

Much as the Ladder of participation has been influential in the development literature it has
attracted some level of criticism. The typology has been described as outdated and defective
(Fung, 2005) in the sense that public empowerment may not be desirable in all cases. There
are cases where consultation is more appropriate for the general public than citizens’ control.
The ladders has also been criticised for not addressing participation processes and methods
and therefore cannot solve contemporary challenges of stakeholder participation (Tritter and
McCallum, 2006). They argue from the health services point of view that, user engagement
and empowerment are complex phenomenon and therefore a hierarchical typology would
make the evaluation of the nature of stakeholder involvement difficult. A multiple ladder is
therefore proposed to capture other people who self-organise without going through
hierarchical processes (Tritter and McCallum, 2006).

2.3.2 Pretty (1995) - Typology

Another typology of stakeholder participation was developed by Pretty, (1995) for planning
and implementation in an agricultural context. Pretty (1995, p. 1253) states that’’ the many
ways that development organisations interpret and use the term participation can be resolved
into seven (7) clear types’’. The types range from manipulative participation which is the
lowest level to self-organisation which is the highest level.
The manipulative types provide the level where stakeholders are put on official boards as
representatives but have no power to influence; most times they are non-elected members. At

13
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

the passive level, people participate by being told what government has already decided.
Pretty (1995, p. 1253) posits ‘’ some suggest that the manipulation that is central to types one
to four mean they should be seen as types of non-participation’’. It is therefore from the fifth
type that some level of effective participation begins to emerge. The highest level is self-
mobilisation where stakeholders take initiatives without external influence to change systems.
This level can be said to be at what Arnstein’s ladder describe as citizens control. Pretty’s
typology however does not critically challenge power relations. Table 1 gives details of the
typology and the description of the elements in each level.

Table 1: Pretty (1995) Typology of participation

Type Characteristic of each type

Manipulative Participation Participation is simply a pretence, with ‘peoples’ representatives on
official boards, but who are un-elected and have no power.
Passive Participation People participate by being told what has been decided or has
already happened. It involves unilateral announcement by an
administration or project management without any listening to
people’s responses. The information being shared belongs only to
external professionals.
Participation by People participate by being consulted or by answering questions.
consultation External agents define problems and information-gathering
processes, and so control analysis. Such a consultative process does
not concede any share in decision making, and professionals are
under no obligation to take on board people’s views.
Participation for material People participate by contributing resources; for example,
incentives labour, in return for food, cash or other material incentives.
Farmers may provide the fields and labour, but are involved in
neither experimentation nor the process of learning. It is very
common to see this ‘called’ participation, yet people have no
stake in prolonging technologies or practices when the
incentives end.
Functional Participation Participation seen by external agencies as means to achieve project
goals, especially reduced cost. People may participate by forming
groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project. Such
involvement may be interactive and involve shared decision-making,
but tends to arise only after major decisions have already been made
by external agents. At worst, local people may still only be co-opted to
serve external goals.
Interactive Participation People participate in joint analysis, development of action plans and
formation or strengthening of local institutions. Participation is seen
as a right, not just the means to achieve project goals. The process
involves interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple
perspectives and make use of systemic and structural learning
processes. As groups take control over local decisions and determine
how available resources are used, so they have a stake in maintaining
structures of practice.
Self-mobilisation People participate by taking initiatives independently of
external institutions to change systems. They develop contacts
with external institutions for resources and technical advice
14
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

they need, but retain control over how resources are used. Self-
mobilization can spread if government and NGOs provide an
enabling framework of support. Such self-initiated mobilisation
may or may not challenge existing distribution of wealth and
power.
Source: Adapted from (Pretty, 1995)

 Criticism of Pretty’s Typology and similarities with Arnstien

It is acknowledged that Pretty’s typology seems to cover important types of participation but
still have some limitations. That is, she blames lower levels of participation on external
agents, which is not entirely true. Factors including structural constraints may contribute to
passive participation, which is the knowledge and skills of participants.
Besides this, the typology does not identify a level where there is no participation at all; this
is however addressed by Arnstien’s model. (Cornwall, 2008) also makes the following
comparative observations about the two typologies as follows:
 While Arnstien looks at participation from the view point of those on the receiving
end, Pretty focuses on the users of participatory approaches whether project managers
or government
 The two typologies are normative in that they both conceive participation from bad to
good
 With regards to effective participation, Arnstien’s level is citizens’ ultimate power
and control whiles Pretty looks at self-mobilisation which may or may not challenge
existing power structures
 Also both typologies considers to some extent, a shift of control by authorities to
people or citizens
In measuring effective participation however, the study adapts Pretty’s typology to assess the
extent of stakeholder participation in the strategic planning process. Effective participation
can therefore be described as the levels that allow and provides sufficient opportunities for
stakeholders to influence decisions or take initiatives.

2.4 Participation as a Means or an End

Participation is an important component of development and can influence to a greater extent
the quality of an urban areas development pattern. It can be viewed as a means that is, an
instrument to facilitate development or as an end or a goal on its own. Various organisations
including local governments, donor organisations and Non-governmental Organisations
employ participation as a means or an end or a combination of the two objectives.
Participation as a means serves as a tool for organising, promoting actions and mobilising
people as creative problem solvers in a complex urban environment. That is to facilitate
better planning of urban areas or cities (Hassan et al, 2011). Participation functions as a
means through which stakeholders and local self-organised groups get access to higher and
macro arenas of decision-making of local governance. Government can also use participation
as a strategy to enter into alliances with grass root organisations already familiar with
practices of participation and participatory processes.
Participation becomes a goal when it aims at building the capacity or empowerment of
stakeholders (Hassan et al, 2011) for self-sustaining development planning processes. In this
15
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

vein, participation enables people to do things for themselves by self organising and
intervening in the spatial development of their neighbourhood or communities.
Alsop et al (2006, p. 10) however defines empowerment as ‘’ a groups or individuals capacity
to make effective choices, that is to make choices and then to transform those choices into
desired actions and outcome’’. They argue that capacity is very much influenced by
opportunity structures which are the institutional context in which stakeholders operate. This,
Alsop et al. (2006) further argue that it affect agency, which is the stakeholders ability to
make purposeful choices. Bebbington et al.(2007 p. 617) corroborate this assertion that ‘’ to
take empowerment seriously is to go against entrenched values, interest and power. In this
research, participation is viewed as a means to an end.

2.5 Factors that Influence Participation

It is often assumed that stakeholders would voluntarily or automatically participate in policy
decision-making process because they understand the benefits (Cleaver 1968). The stand
therefore is that all that is needed is to mobilise them and their capacities would be released
to support development. But there are various factors that may enhance or constrain a
person’s ability to participate. Some of these factors have been documented in various
literatures.
According to Hassan et al (2011), trust may facilitate an open discussion and produce
collaboration among actors and also influence public support for policy decisions. This
assertion is corroborated by Ridder and Pahl-Wostl (2005) that for participation to be
successful trust must be developed. Hassan et al (2011, p. 206) argue that trust can grow from
low to high as interactions continue and defines trust as “a belief, or expectancy regarding the
attitudes, the future behaviour and the performance of an object of trust’’. They give the
attributes of trust as openness, reliability and transparency (ibid). Other factors are given as
the technical capacity/capability of participants where capacity is defined as the competence,
skills, knowledge and ability (Aref et al, 2010). Also the cultural settings or local conditions,
adequate and timely feedback are considered important factor for participation (Peelle et al.
1996). Culture is defined here as the shared norms, practices and traditions of a group of
people.
From the organisational point of view, Hassan et al, (2011) talks of regulatory constraints,
adequate resources in terms of time and funds. They argue that in most times even though
participation is embedded requirements in the policy formulation processes, the processes are
inconsistent with the institutional structures. Also, they posit that many of the failures
experienced in participatory processes have their roots in the organisational cultures of the
institution initiating the process. Besides, (Ansell and Gash, 2007) argue that facilitative
leadership is an important factor in bringing people to the decision-making table. They
explain that leadership is critical for establishing clear agenda and rules, facilitating dialogue
and developing trust. They also indicate that, incentives are critical to participation.
In addition, there are a number of techniques or instruments for enabling participation which
Rowe and Frewer, (2005, p. 252) jointly term ‘’ mechanism’’. There are a number of
mechanisms for participation in the literature which are employed depending on the
participation type, the requirements and aims. The effectiveness of the mechanism adopted is
assessed either by the process or its outcome (Rowe and Frewer, 2005) and can be a factor to
influence participation. Some of the participation mechanisms listed in the literature include
but not limited to the following; public hearings, community forums, focus groups, citizen’s

16
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

advisory committees, facilitated workshops, surveys and review panels. Also included in the
list is public opinion, consensus conference and citizen’s jury (Rowe and Frewer 2005).
These factors has been put under five categories by Peelle et al (1996) which are: Process
factors, Organisational context factors, Agency strategic considerations, Social-economic-
historical-political context and unique factors. Three of these categorisations are adapted by
the researcher and modified based on the various literatures to operationalise concepts and
variable for the field work. The adapted categories are organisational context factor, process
factors and socio-economic factors.

2.6 Self-Organization - Concept

This concept has been based on the argument that, participatory planning proposals have
remained under the control of government and are not responsive to initiatives that emerge
from the dynamics of civil society itself, (Boonstra and Boelens, 20110) The concept has
been based on the idea that, there are various diversity and dynamics in the urban area that
one governmental standpoint cannot provide sustainable solutions. The theory that underpins
the self-organisation concept are complexity theory (Bonstra and Boelin (2011).
Complexity theory according to (klijn, 2008) is the idea that society is made up of large
elements or parts which interacts in sophisticated ways. This interaction is non-linear; they
co-evolve and self-organize to produce new structures. Non-linearity is explained as the
dynamic process and the unpredictable changes they produce, whiles co-evolution is how
systems and its sub-systems influence each other in the complex system. Bonstra and Boelens
(2011) while acknowledging complexity theory as underlying self-organization, argues that
Actor Network Theory (ANT) present a detailed and precise way to examine the relationships
that determine a system. The ANT according to Bonstra and Boelens (2011, p. 113) describes
‘’the emergence of society as the outcome of heterogeneous relations between actors and
artefacts’’.
The concept self-organisation has been defined by various authors with some common
elements and themes. In their definition, Boonstra and Boelens (2011, p. 100) state that it is
‘’initiatives for spatial intervention that originate in civil society itself, via autonomous
community-based networks of citizens, outside government control’’. The concept is
conceived in a network society where urban spaces and places are connected to others beyond
boundaries. They argue that national government position has been reduced for various
reasons which include reduced public funds and globalisation. This has made it imperative
that government can no more act on their own. There is therefore the need to recognise or
develop shades of participation that can adapt better with current civil society organisations
which are extremely empowered, elusive and individually segregated, Boonstra and Boelens
(2011). To further their argument, Boonstra and Boelens (2011, p. 109) defines participation
as ‘’goals set by governments bodies on which citizens can exert influence through
procedures resulting in processes of thematic, procedural, geographical – and so on –
inclusion’’. They therefore bring out the issue that participation is government initiative
whiles self-organisation is civil society initiated, the two initiatives however influence the
urban fabric either to transform or maintain a place. They also assert that, self-organisation
stand for the real motives, communities, networks and objectives of stakeholders, at least
initially outside of government policies and separated from participatory planning processes.
It is important to note from the assertion that, initially self-organisation emerging from civic
society may be independent of government influence but with time may depend on it.

17
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Besides this definition is that of Meerkert et al. (2012) which state that self-organisation is
‘’the emergence and maintenance of structures out of local interaction, an emergence that is
not imposed or determined by one singular actor, but is rather the result of a multitude of
complex and non-linear interactions between various elements’’. In this definition
recognition is given to established actors and institutions and the need for flexibility to
collaborate with this self-organized emerging structures for urban area regeneration. Bakker
et al (2012) brings another dimension of self-organisation and focuses on the collective
actions which are citizen’s initiatives. They argue that citizen’s initiatives needs supports and
interest of governments. These supports could be in the form of encouraging, informing and
transfer of resources. From the foregoing, it can be said that self-organization is understood
as any civil society led initiatives (Bonstra and Boelens 2011) with or without government
collaboration (Meerkerk et al 2012).

2.7 Theoretical definitions - Strategic Planning

The role of urban areas as the engine of growth and pivot for economic development of
nations has long been recognized. Most advanced and transitional economies have been able
to strategically formulate and implemented policies and strategies that focuses on the
development and management of cities to function as engine of growth and make them
liveable for their inhabitants. Pennink et al., (2001, p. 7) state that ‘’many countries are
exploring ways in which to maximize the opportunities of urban areas while tracking the
specific challenges they present’’.
Pennink et al (2001, p. 7) further argue that, the planning of towns and cities are of critical
importance for five reasons:
 Urban growth is a reality
 Cities and towns are engines of national economic development
 Urban development can impact on more people faster
 Good urban development is good for rural development
 Urban areas are centres of social progress and cultural development

This supports the idea that urban areas or cities must be planned to achieve city development
objectives and greater sustainability. Many planning theories have evolved over the years and
strategic spatial planning (SSP) has been adopted by many public sector institutions to
facilitate development of cities and urban areas. The definition of planning theory has been
described by (Campbell and Fainstein, 2003) as a frustrating and disappointing endeavour.
This notwithstanding, there has been various definitions of strategic planning which need to
be reviewed.
Strategic planning has been defined by Van den Broeck, (1995) cited in Van den Broeck,
(2004, p. 173) as a ‘’social process aimed at designing and realising an intended spatial
development of a given area. Within this process, four sub-process can be distinguished: one
leading to the design of dynamic and sustainable long term perspective, second dealing with
daily policy, trouble shooting and process-supporting actions, a third dealing with a decision-
making process involving all possible actors and last but not the least, the process to
empower people to better their living conditions to participate in society’’. He argues that
many definitions of strategic spatial planning focuses on the achievement of long term
visions or goals but de-emphasises measures and actions to realise that goal. It is therefore
important to note the emphasis on the processes and sub-processes in the definition, however,
18
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

strategic planning has been criticised for focusing too much on processes and very little on
implementation.
The key issues in this definition includes planning as a social process, which recognises the
complex nature of the urban environment with a number of players (Todes, 2011)
determining the urban development. The definition also focuses on visioning as a major
activity in the planning process. Visioning is the process by which a community mentally
creates the future it wants (D'hondt, 2011) and arranges a set of activities to achieve it. The
involvement of stakeholders is also captured which is argued (Campbell and Fianstein, 2003)
indicates a shift from technocratic rational planning models to a more dynamic, multi-actor
and interactive process, based on complex system and uncertainties in the urban environment.
Besides this, Albrechts, (2004 p. 747) also defines strategic planning as a “public sector-led
socio-spatial process through which a vision, action, and means for implementation are
produced that shape and frame what place is and may become’’. Much as Van den Broeck,
(2004) remains silent on who leads the strategic planning process, Albrechts’s definition is
clear on the issue. The two definitions however recognises the social aspect of planning that it
is not a neutral technical activity ((Todes, 2011) but it is shaped by values and interest of the
diverse actors. Albrechts also subscribe to the four track approach as given by Van dan
Broeck.
In addition, Healey, (2004, p. 47) defines strategic planning as ‘’a self-conscious collective
(societal) effort to imagine a town, city, region or territory and to translate the result into
priorities for area investment, conservation measures, new upgrading areas of settlement,
strategic infrastructure investment and principles of land use regulations’’. This definition
posits that strategic planning is a purposeful intervention in the development process of an
urban area and also recognises vision, process and development of strategic intervention as
critical elements in the place making process.
(Albrechts, 2004) argues that strategic planning indicates the willingness of stakeholders to
accept policies and decisions made through network of actors including organisations, even
when the decisions are not in line with generic policies. He also explains that active
stakeholder involvement, consensus building, collaboration, open dialogue and accountability
are some of the key terms in strategic planning theory. This assertion is corroborated by
Campbell and Fainstein (2003, p. 4) that planners do not ‘’have exclusive influence over
territories; developers, business persons and politicians and other actors also shape urban and
regional development’’. This is why it is important to collaborate with all actors in urban
areas. It is imperative at this point to also note some of the important characteristics of
strategic spatial planning.

2.7.1 Characteristics of Strategic Planning

The ‘’what’’ of the concept, strategic planning has been reviewed and the ‘’how’’ is also
important. Albrechts (2004, p. 747) enumerates some characteristics of strategic planning
which has also been cited in Van Dan Broeck (2004).
 Focus on limited strategic key issues: this characteristics emphases the principle of
specificity and selectivity as against comprehensiveness. That is, the prioritising and
concentrating on workable interventions. The fact is that resources are limited.
 Take a critical view of the environment in terms of determining strengths and
weaknesses in the context of opportunities and threats
 It studies the external trends, forces and resources
19
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

 It identifies and gathers major stakeholders (public and private)

 It allows for a broad and diverse involvement during the planning process
 It develops a long-term vision or perspective and strategies at different levels
 Take into account power structures, uncertainties and competing values
 It designs plan making structures and develops content images and decisions
framework for influencing and managing spatial change
 It is about building new ideas and processes that can carry them forward, thus
generating ways of understanding, ways of building agreements, and ways of
organising and mobilising for the purpose of exerting influence in different arenas
 It is focused on decisions, actions and implementation
 It incorporates monitoring , feedback and revision

2.7.2 Strategic Planning Process – The Four-track approach

It is recognized that various processes of strategic planning has been proposed in the planning
literature. But this study reviews the four-track approach which seems to synthesize the
various steps in the strategic planning process into four-tracks. Albrechts (2004, p. 752)
describe it as ‘’the working tracks’’. The four-track process was adapted for the LA21
programme. It is said to be non-linear (Albrechts, 2004 and Van Dan Broeck, 2004) and also
not a normative process but descriptive. Thus the LA21 programme cities adapted it
depending on their context. On the division of the tracks, Van Dan Broeck (2004, p. 177)
states that it ‘’lies in the different objectives and the character of the planning activities as
well as the different and complementary skills to be used’’. This makes it easy for
stakeholders to participate based on their skills and competence which enables participation.
Albrechts (2004, p. 752) explains that, the four-tracks are based on four complementing types
of rationality: ‘’value rationality (the design of alternative future), communicative rationality
(involving a growing number of actors- private and public- in the process, instrumental
rationality (looking for the best way to solve the problems and achieve the desired future and
strategic rationality (a clear and explicit strategy for dealing with power relationships).
The four track strategic planning process as given by Van Dan Broeck (2004) and Albrechts
(2004) are summarised as follows:
Track 1: This track focuses on formulating a long-term vision and programmes and a
short term action plan.
Track 2: Here the emphasis is on building trust and solving problems to ensure the
achievement of the stated vision. Also lessons are learnt from the implementation of projects.
Track 3: Involving different actors in co-producing and participate in the decision-
making processes
Track 4: Creation of a more lasting and empowerment process. Activities in the track
are of different nature focusing on local issues on places and spaces. Self-organised groups
are involved in major decisions.
This process which is described as iterative ensures the involve stakeholders in the various
tracks for legitimacy and acceptance of strategic visions and projects.

20
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

2.8 Conceptual Framework – Stakeholder Participation

Conceptually it can be said that stakeholder participation, self organisation, and strategic
planning are inter-related. The complexity of the urban environment, the network of actors
with different interests and needs requires effective participatory inputs in urban planning and
management. A hierarchical and highly technocratic planning process is certainly
incompatible with the complexity of urban areas. Healey, (2007 p. viii) explains it this way
‘’the argument for expert and technical considerations to rule policy processes is highly being
challenged by contemporary intellectual, political and urban dynamics’’.
The conceptual framework, given in figure 5 looks at the translation of selected concepts in
the theories of participation, factors that influence participation and strategic planning in an
iterative context and how it can be operationalized in practice. The policy and legal
environment of the study area is also considered in the framework.
Conceptually, stakeholder’s ability to participate in the policy or planning process is highly
associated with various factors including the allocation of adequate funds, regulatory
framework or policy documents and trust (Hassan et al 2011). Also important for
participation is the cultural context, skills and knowledge of individuals and feedback
mechanism. The facilitative leadership and mechanisms adopted for the participatory
initiatives can also influence stakeholder’s willingness to interact at the policy arena (Rowe
and Frewer, 2005). It can be inferred that, theoretically, this same factors can integrate self
organised groups and their initiative into the policy arena. The conceptual framework takes
into account the fact that self organised groups are autonomous and may or may not be
involved in the collaborative efforts. They however may monitor the policy arena as a matter
of interest.
The factors that influence participation are linked conceptually to stakeholders
(government/departments and community level stakeholders) in the planning process which
lead to effective participation. Also conceptually, the mobilisation of stakeholders and
facilitation and integration of self-organised initiatives can also lead to effective participation.
The outcome of the effective participation is stakeholder perceived ownership of the strategic
plan, perceptions of influencing the prioritisation and selection of key strategies and location
of projects.

21
 Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga West Municipality
Figure 5: Conceptual Framework - Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation

Influencing Factors

Organisational context Socio-economic Process Factors

Factors  Transparent Process
Factors 
 Adequate Financial o Employment status
Interactive feedback
resources o Community cultural  Payment of incentives
Legal and Policy  Flexibility of approach values
Framework o Skills and knowledge

1992 Constitution

Mobilisation/Integration
Local Government
Act 1993
Effective Process Outcome
Local Participation  Perceptions of
National Development Government  Joint visioning ownership of plan
Planning (System)  Interactive shared  Inputs influenced key
Community decisions strategies
Act 1994
Stakeholders  Joint action  Allocation of
Departments and planning resources
Development Policy Units
Framework
2010-2013 Self-organised
Groups/initiatives

Planning
Guidelines
2010-2013

Source: By Author based on Van dan Broeck (2004)

22
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

2.9 Conclusion
In concluding this chapter, it is imperative to summarise the theoretical ideas gathered from
the review. Theories reviewed included theory of participation and complexity theory. Major
concepts discussed included stakeholder participation, Self-organization and strategic
planning. For the key issues on participation:
 The researcher state that Pretty (1995) typology of participation is adapted to assess
the ex9tent or effectiveness of stakeholder participation because the indicators are
available and also is empirically grounded and therefore relevant to the study.
 The definition of stakeholder participation for the purpose of this study is the one
given by Rowe and Fewer, (2005) which is ‘’the practice of involving members of the
public in the agenda setting, decision making, and policy formulation activities of
organisation/Institution responsible for policy development’’. This definition fit very
much the local government situation which is the context of the study.
 The study also looks at participation as a means to preparing the MTDP and therefore
empowerments is not measured. Besides, the term stakeholder is used synonymously
with the term community and citizen participation but is considered a sub-set of the
general public.
 Also stakeholder participation, involvement and engagement are used
interchangeable.
 Factors that influence participation like capacities and skills of stakeholders, openness
of the process or trust, availability of funds, payment of incentives and flexibility to
approach the process may enhance or constraint effectiveness or quality of
participation.
 Effective participation is for the purpose of this research is described as the levels that
allow and provides sufficient opportunities for stakeholders to influence decisions or
take initiatives.
Key issues on self-organisation:
o It is solely civil society initiated process
o It may or may not have government facilitation and this study adapts
o Self-organisation leads to the initiation of projects and programmes that local
governments can facilitate and support for spatial improvement.

Key issues on Strategic Spatial Planning:

o There is no single agreed definition in academia as the review shows
o The study adapts Albrechts, (2004) definition of strategic planning as a “public
sector-led socio-spatial process through which a vision, action, and means for
implementation are produced that shape and frame what place is and may become’’
o Strategic planning yield very much to participation and therefore a good context to
investigate factors that influence participation.
The conceptual framework is very much influence by Van Dan Broeck (2004) definition of
strategic planning and the four track process as well the theoretical perspectives of the
various participation literatures reviewed.

23
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

CHAPTER THREE – Research Methodology

3.0 Introduction

This chapter focuses on the research methodology, which is how the research was
undertaken. It outlines and explains the design (type, approach and strategy) and
operationalization of variables. The chapter also delves into study population, sample size
and selection, validity and reliability of the study, data collection methods and data sources,
unit of analysis and data processing methods.
Much as the research is a case study and adopts a qualitative approach, there is a quantitative
component to complement the advantages and disadvantages of the difference between
qualitative and quantitative methods. That is, there is a survey within the case study. Figure 6
provides the framework for the research design and linkages with the various chapters of the
research, while appendix 4 gives the research design with time schedules.

Figure 6: Research Design and Methodology

Chapter 1
 Research Objectives
 Research Questions

Chapter 2
o Theories and Concepts
o Conceptual Framework

Chapter 3
Research Design and Methodology

Data Sources

Population
Sample size Primary Secondary

Observation Content Analysis

of documents
Questionnaire Interview Focus group

Data Processing and analysis

Chapter 4
Results and Findings

Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations

Source: Author’s own construct

24
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

3.1 Revised Research Questions

MAIN QUESTION
To be able to achieve the objective of the study, the following questions have been designed
as a guide. The main question that the research seeks to answer is what factors influence
effective stakeholder participation in the strategic planning process?

Sub-questions
 How does the participatory process operate in practice?
 What factors influence stakeholder participation in the strategic planning process?
 How does the local authority mobilize stakeholders to participation and how does it
influence participation?
 What actions does the local government take to facilitate and integrate self-organized
initiatives for urban spatial development?
 How effectively do stakeholders participate in the planning process and to what extent
do they influence decisions?

3.2 Research Type, Approach and Strategy

The research adopts a qualitative approach but have a quantitative component. It adopts a
case study as a strategy to explore and explain the factors influencing stakeholder
participation in the strategic planning process in the study area. The research focuses on a
single holistic case study. Various definitions and indicators as to when to use case study are
found in the case study literature. Eisenhardt, (1999p. 534) defines case study as ‘’a research
strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single setting’’. Much
as this definition sheds some light on what a case study research is, a more comprehensive
definition is needed. This is provided by Robert Yin. A case study according to (Yin, 2009),
p. 18) can be defined from two technical perspectives. That is from the scope and data
collection and analysis perspective. He defines a case study based on the scope that it is ‘’an
empirical enquiry that investigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context,
especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly defined’’.
From the data collection perspective he states that it:
 Copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be many
more variables of interest than data points, and as a result
 Relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing coverage in a
triangulating fashion. And as another result
 Benefit from the prior development of theoretical proposition to guide data
collection and analysis
The researcher therefore adopted a case study approach for the following reasons drawn from
the definitions:
a. It afforded the opportunity for an in-depth study of stakeholder participation
b. Case study enabled the researcher to adopt various sources of evidence which allowed
validation and therefore improved the quality of data and findings.
c. It also enabled the researcher to learn empirically the translation of theoretical
participatory approaches into practice

25
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

d. Finally, since the researcher has no control over the phenomenon being investigated, a
case study was the most appropriate method.
It must however be stated that a survey strategy was also used to collect data to strengthen
some of the weaknesses of a case study strategy.

3.3 Selection of Study Area

The Ga West Municipality was purposively selected as the focus of the study. This was
however based on some characteristics of the municipality. The municipality is an urban area
and is one of the oldest districts created in Ghana since the decentralization reforms in 1988,
and therefore has well established sub-structures to facilitate the study.
The Municipal Assembly under the decentralised planning system has prepared four strategic
plans from the year 1994 to 2013 using participatory approaches as provided in the planning
guidelines. The municipality however has had some challenges of involving stakeholders in
its planning process. Also the researcher has worked as a local government staff of the Ga
West Municipal Assembly until 2005 and is therefore very familiar with the area. Also as a
local government staff, my experience helped me ask probing questions and also was able to
cross check issues for triangulation. Access to secondary data was also enhanced due to the
fact that I am a local government staff.

3.4 Sample size and Selection

The guiding principle for the sampling procedure was respondents’ representativeness of the
research population. The population of the study was determined based on the definition of
key stakeholders who have experience or participated in the planning process. It was out of
this population of 241 that samples were drawn for both the survey questionnaire and the
semi-structured interviews. This population is made up of local government staff (heads of
departments) and community representatives (Assembly members, Unit committee members
and traditional authorities). For the survey, 60 respondents were randomly selected out of the
population. On the field however, 41 questionnaires were administered due to the challenges
enumerated in chapter one but this does not in any way significantly affect the findings.
For the semi-structured interviews, the sample frame was once again used but non-probability
sampling procedures or techniques were employed to select 22 respondents. The reason for
the purposive sampling was the knowledge of those respondents of the phenomenon under
study. Two (2) focus group discussions was also organised with the Municipal Planning
Coordinating Unit (MPCU) and Unit committee members in the Zonal Councils. One direct
observation of a plan review meeting was also undertaken. Appendix 5 provides further
breakdown.

3.5 Validity and Reliability

A. Validity
The reliability and validity of any research work is very critical. Validity has been assured by
operationalising the concepts being measured. In this vein, the researcher has constructed a
table that links the research questions with the data collection questions and the variables to
be measured. Besides this, the design and layout of the questionnaire as well as the interview
26
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

guide were carefully done and strengthened by pilot testing of the questionnaire to solicit
input to refine it. Also the results of the various data collection techniques were continuously
compared. That is the interviews, focus groups, observation and questionnaires.

B. Reliability
(Yin, 2009), p. 45) states that the ‘’ goal of reliability is to minimize the errors and biases in a
study’’. Such that if another investigator follows the same procedures described by an earlier
researcher and undertake the same case study again, the same findings and conclusions would
be arrived at. With this in mind therefore, the researcher ensured careful documentation of all
research activities. The research design was also carefully followed.
Besides these, the knowledge of the study area and the researcher’s ability to speak the local
language supported the use of the right terminologies. The research also adopts multiple
methods of data collection for triangulation of data to allow cross-checking of information as
shown in figure 7. That is a combination of questionnaires, interviews, observation and focus
group discussions and secondary data to complement the data collected. The objective is to
validate answers and conclusions.
Figure 7: Data Triangulation

Survey Questionnaire

Reliability

Interviews, focus Secondary Data

group/observation analysis
Source: Authors own construct

3.6 Operationalization of Variables and Indicators

The concepts as reviewed in the chapter 2 of the document formed the basis for the
operationalisation of the variables and indicators for the data collection. The
operationalisation allows the researcher to measure what is to be measured thereby improving
construct validity of the study.

The questionnaires and interview instruments were subsequently prepared based on the
outcome of the operationalisation as indicated in Table 4.

27
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Table 2: Operationalisation of Variables and Indicators

Research Indicators Data Source of Information
Questions collection
methods

Variable -1. Participatory Planning Process

How does the 1.1 Levels of meetings (Municipality, Secondary data Planning guidelines
participatory Zonal council and community) Semi-structured
Planning System Act 480
1.2 Stakeholders invited (individuals, Expert
planning process interviews Minutes of meetings
operate in the groups)
practice? 1.3 Number of days used for planning Planning Coordinating Unit
meetings
(Independent
variables)
Variable – 2. Organizational context factors

What factors 2.1 Adequate resource allocated : Secondary data Minutes of meetings
influence Budget for the process and actual release Semi- Financial Reports
stakeholder 2.2 Timely release of planning structured Annual Budget
participation in guidelines and policy documents interviews Policy documents
2.3.3Evidence of top management Questionnaire Assembly members
the strategic
commitment to the process/presence at Focus group Heads of departments
planning meetings/ provide resources discussion
process? 2.4 Evidence of freedom/flexibility to Expert
approach participatory activities (varied interviews
(Independent forms of engagement)
variable)
Variable – 3. Social-economic factors

3.1 Stakeholder have regular source of Semi- Assembly members

income/employment structured Heads of departments
3.2 Evidence of prior stakeholder interviews Council members
experience in participation Questionnaire Unit committee members
3.3 Perceptions of community Cultural Focus group NGOs and CBOs
and social influence on participation discussions
3.4 stakeholder perceptions of having
adequate skills/ knowledge and
competence
Variable -4. Process Factors
4.1 Trust : perceptions of open, Secondary data Public hearing reports
transparent and reliable process Semi- Assembly members
4.2Existence of interactive feedback structured Heads of departments
4.3 Evidence of Assembly’s acceptance interviews Council members/Unit
and consideration of citizens inputs Questionnaire committee members
4.4 Evidence of incentive to participate NGOs and CBOs
( T&T allowances, time/frequency of
meetings)

Source: Developed by author based on literature review

28
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Table 2. Continued (Operationalisation)

Research Indicators Data Source of Information
Questions collection
methods
Variable – 5. Stakeholder mobilization

How does the 5.1Existence of stakeholder list – clear Secondary data Policy documents
local authority representation Semi- Public hearing reports
mobilize 5.2Evidence of effective stakeholder structured Assembly members
stakeholders to mobilization interviews Heads of departments/Units
- Adequate information about the Questionnaire Council members
participate?
planning process and activities
(sensitization, dissemination of
information
(Independent - Local government working
variable) through established groups and
local mobilization channels
- Clear role of stakeholders
established and communicated

Variable – 6. Facilitation and integration of Self-organized initiatives

What actions 6.1 Number of self-organised initiatives Secondary data Annual Budgets
does the local (projects/sector) Interviews MTDP 2010-2013
government take 6.2 Evidence of technical support to (semi- Local Government Budget
to facilitate and groups (advice, location of facilities, structured) Central Administration
integrate self staff support) Questionnaire department
organized 6.3 Evidence of Self-organized Assembly members (Statutory
initiatives for initiatives incorporated into strategic sub-committee members)
urban spatial plan NGOs/CBOs
development? 6.4 Evidence of financial support/% of
budget for self organized activities
(independent
variable)

Variable 7. Effective Stakeholder participation

How effective is 7.1 Number of stakeholders regularly Secondary data Minutes of meetings
stakeholder participating in meetings Semi-structured Assembly members
participation in 7.2 Evidence of how stakeholders are interviews Heads of departments
the planning involved in specific planning activities Questionnaire Council members
-member of planning team and extent of Focus group Unit committee members
process and how
influence discussions NGOs/CBOs
do they influence - Information giving on what is planned
decisions? - Consultative problem definition and
information gathering and sharing
- Existence of stakeholder in-kind
(dependent contribution (labour, land, cash,
variable) skills/expertise)
-
Source: Developed by author based on literature review

29
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Table 2: Continued (Operationalisation)

Research Indicators Data Collection Sources of Information
Question Method
Perceptions of interactive shared decision
making process
- Joint analysis, joint development of action
plans participation seen as a right

Variable 8. Influence on decisions

8.1 Perceptions that inputs influenced key Interviews Heads of departments

strategies (semi- Area Council members
8.2 Perceptions that inputs influenced structured) Assembly members
allocation of financial resources Focus group NGOs/CBOs
8.3 Stakeholder believe that inputs discussion
influenced location of projects
8.4 Perceptions of owning the plan/having
copies or includes a lot of local knowledge

Source: Developed by author based on literature review

3.7 Data Sources

The study employed two main sources of data. That is primary and secondary data were
collected, collated and analysed for the required information for the research.

3.7.1 Primary Data Sources

The primary data sources were generated from the questionnaire and interviews with the key
stakeholders. The interviews lasted on the average 45 minutes but the in-depth discussions
with the key planning team members lasted for an hour. A focus group discussion was also
used to gather some primary data from stakeholders who were purposively selected due to
their role in the planning process. That is the DPCU and Unit committee members. An
observation was also employed to further ensure reliability. A sample of the questionnaire,
semi-structured interview and the interview guide are attached as appendices 7, 8 and 9
respectively. Some pictures of the interviews and focus group discussions are also attached as
appendix 10.

3.7.2 Secondary Data Sources

The secondary data sources included documents from the municipal authority and its
departments, review of literature on stakeholder participation, strategic spatial planning, and
decentralised planning system. Also, secondary data were used to support arguments,
counteract it or explain concepts. In addition, secondary data were used to compare findings
and conclusions. For example, the annual budgets, minutes of meetings and projects files
were consulted and the contents analysed. Besides, legal documents, policy documents and
planning guidelines were drawn upon to clarify issues on the phenomenon under study.

30
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

3.8 Data Collection Methods and Instruments

The data collection methods employed was qualitative but had a quantitative component. The
data collection was divided into three phases to ensure that all issues were captured, but this
does not imply a linear programme because some of the activities were undertaken
concurrently. The questionnaires were pre-testing to ensure that the concepts and questions
were clear to respondents. The content analysis of the participatory process started before
going to the field with a review of the planning guidelines and the planning systems Act, 480.
Responses from the interviews were used to assess the process as it operates in practice.
Phase 1 of the data collection was the administration of the questionnaire. Questionnaire was
chosen as an effective instrument because it is able to collect data from a large number of
respondents within a relatively short period. To be able to measure the factors and the extent
to which they influence participation as well as the other issues, a Likert type scale response
was adopted to measure the degree of agreement and influence for each question item. The
measurement was on a five-point scale which is for example, 1- not at all influential to 5-
extremely influential. The questionnaires were administered by three research assistants after
a short training. The researcher was with one assistant or the other for the first two days to
ensure things were going on well.
The phase 2 of the data collection was the interview section which the researcher met face-to-
face with respondents and captured the information. No research assistant was employed for
this aspect of the data collection. The semi-structured interview instrument was used for
respondents who were purposively sampled to get in-depth information. The semi-structured
instrument was adopted because it ensured that the same question was posed to all
respondents. This is part of the process to ensure validity and reliability.
The third phase of the research was the organisation of focus group discussions with two
groups, which also used purposively sampled respondents to verify the information gathered
(DPCU members at the head office of the local government and the unit committee members
at the Pokuase Zonal council office). An interview guide was used to facilitate the
discussions. This notwithstanding, digressions were allowed in situations where more
information was being given from respondents. With the observation of a heads of
departments plan implementation review meeting, I concentrated on the time the meeting
started, issues discussed (formal and informal), openness of the process, documents given
out, participants’ reactions to issues and the presence of the MCE and DCD. Appendix 5
gives a schema for the data collection phases linked to key informants.

3.9 Data Processing and Analysis Methods

The qualitative interviews generated a lot of information like field notes, interview scripts
and audio recording as well as information from secondary data (documents). In this
research, the analysis of qualitative data commenced on the field and included: organising the
data, searching for significant patterns and synthesizing. Also coding was undertaken and
finally, Atlas-ti software was used for the final analysis which involved grouping of
quotations under various codes and subsequent intepratations.
With the survey questionnaires, the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used
to analyse the data. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic characteristics.
Specifically, chi-square text was used to establish associations between various groups and
perceived influence of factors influencing participations. Conclusions are drawn and some
recommendations are then made.

31
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

CHAPTER FOUR – Research Analysis and Findings

4.0 Introduction
This chapter delves into the analysis and findings of the one month data collection on the
research questions. The chapter commences with a description of the planning process as
given in the National Development planning Systems, Act, (Act 480) and the planning
guidelines and how it is operating in the research area, Ga West Municipality. A brief
description of the sample used and the demographic profile of respondents are also provided
to give meaning to the analysis and findings.
The analysis and findings under the five research questions are then presented in line with the
theoretical framework which underpins this study. The research questions are as follows:
 How does the participatory process operate in practice?
 What factors influence stakeholder participation in the strategic planning process?
 How does the Local Authority mobilise stakeholders to participate?
 What actions does the Local Authority take to facilitate and integrate self-organised
initiatives and does it influence participation?
 How effective is stakeholder participation in the planning process how do they
influence decisions?
The findings of the research indicate that funding is a major factor that influences
participation. The inadequate funding is perceived as affecting most activities in the planning
process. The participatory process involves limited number of stakeholders who are
considered not representative; about 35 to 40 people are invited per zonal council meeting.
The planning meetings took just three days and is organised by a core team of a Planning
officer and a budget officer. Top management are not involved in the zonal council meetings.
Of all the factors measured for the extent of influence, stakeholder’s occupation or
employment was considered slightly influential and cultural values were considered not at all
influential by the majority of respondents.

4.1 The Planning process and how it operates in the Study Area
The National Development Planning Systems Act 1994, (Act 480) provides a decentralised
planning structure for all local governments or District Assemblies as detailed in chapter 1.
The focus of this study was however on the District Assembly and its decentralised structures
as given in the figure 8. The structures are interactive from the District Assembly, Zonal
councils and the Unit Committees which is the lowest tier of the system. The system gives
spaces within the structures for the active participation of stakeholders within the
decentralised planning framework, which is bottom-up approach.
Within the local government structures, there are elected or appointed community
representatives who are called Assembly members for specific electoral areas. The electoral
areas have smaller units and elected or appointed community members of these units are
called Unit Committee members. The Assembly members together with the Unit committee
members constitute the Zonal Councils. The Study area has six (6) Zonal councils, 31
Assembly members and 31 unit committees of five people per unit at the time of the research.

32
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality
Figure 8: Focus of the study – Decentralised Planning system

District Assembly
(DPCU)

Zonal Councils

Unit Committees

Communities

Source: By Author based on Boachie-Danquah (2011)

Key: Local government structures/levels of participation Community inputs

The District Planning guidelines provides, in line with the Act 480 detailed framework for
the participatory planning process which is to be lead or facilitated by the District Planning
Coordinating Units (DPCUs) of the Local Government Authority. The DPCU serves as the
Technical planning secretariat of the Local Government and have to network and collaborate
with all stakeholders from problem identification to the approval and adoption of the
Strategic Spatial Plan or Medium Term Development Plan (NDPC, Planning Guidelines
2010-2013). The DPCU have the option of forming a smaller planning team to facilitate the
day to day planning activities.
The study area, like any other urban area provides the opportunities in terms of human
resources and institutions that local governments can harness in its development planning
efforts. In addition, urban areas in general are essentially dynamic with complex spatial
challenges that require collaborative efforts. The planning guidelines therefore stress
effective participation of people who have a stake in the development of the urban area. A
number of key stakeholders are listed in the guidelines (NDPC, Planning guidelines 2010-
2013: p 3) and the local governments are entreated to network and collaborate with to
produce and develop strategic objectives and targets that are relevant, acceptable and
practicable to stakeholders.
Some of the key actors mentioned in the guidelines who are supposed to participate in the
planning process include Departments and agencies, Traditional authority, Private sector
institutions, civil society groups and Assembly members. The others are Sub-district council
members, Youth organisations, Academia and Research institutions.
The participatory process and its consultation and collaboration activities in a multi-
stakeholder environment are provided in a network framework shown in figure 9. The thick
lines represent direct networks of consultations and collaborations.

33
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Figure 9: Participatory process – Stakeholder consultation and collaboration networks

During the research however, it was found out that the participatory planning process
networks deviates from what the guidelines describe. Much as there are some consultations
and collaborations, it is highly skewed towards heads of departments, Assembly members,
representatives of traditional authority and some unit committees. Figure 13 gives the picture.
The broken lines indicate limited networks or collaboration and where there are no lines
indicates no network or participation. The research revealed that the DPCU is not able to
organise community level planning dialogue meetings not even for selected communities.
The process activities are limited to the Zonal councils and attendance is by invitation of 35
to 40 stakeholders per Zonal council. Assembly members stated that they are requested to
bring only two or three people from their electoral areas; this in their view is not
representative. Also heads of departments are not involved in the Zonal council planning
meetings. This situation, majority of respondents believe affect the quality of the
participatory planning process. Some responses to the current planning practice in the study
area are as follows.
A respondent, who is an expert in development planning, referring to NGOs and CBOs
participation vividly states ‘’ actually we do not invite them. Financial constraint is the
main reason but we would consider it. In the urban areas participation is highly related to
funding. Using the persons time without giving anything is a challenge ‘’.
This view was corroborated by a respondent who is a community representative, he states ‘’
NGOs, CBOs and others are not invited to our planning meetings even though they play a
role in our development. We have to do something about it, it is not the best’’.
On community members’ participation, the research findings indicate that it is left to the
Assembly members to organise and collate inputs and proposals without the required logistic
support. The responses show that they are not able to organise such meetings. Respondent
34
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Seth who is a community representative at the Assembly describes it this way’’ They do not
give enough time for the process. I cannot go to the grounds and get information, even
though we have to meet with our community members to get information’’.
In the view of another respondent from a department ‘’we have the flexibility to involve
people and we use the Assembly members and unit committees to get information. But
whether they go down is questionable. We have checked and people say they do not know
anything about the process, which shows may be they do not go or because they deal with a
few section of the people’’. Figure 10 Provides how the network operates practically.

Figure 10: Actual Participatory process - Stakeholder consultation and collaboration networks

Conclusion on the participatory process

In this section a critical overview of the planning process and the involvement of key
stakeholders as given in the planning guidelines and as being practiced in the study area have
been discussed. Based on the analysis of responses from the interviews and the documents
reviewed, it can be concluded that the planning process as described and as being practically
implemented are different. The involvement of stakeholders is limited in terms of numbers
and category. Also stakeholders are not involved in various meetings especially heads of
departments who are the technical staff for the implementers of programmes and projects.

4.2 Description of Sample

In line with the research strategy of a qualitative approach with a survey, two samples were
used. For the semi-structured interviews, 19 respondents were purposively selected out of
which 12 (63%) were heads of departments and included 4 experts of the planning team. For
the survey 41 respondents were randomly sampled. Out of the 41 respondents 22 (56.7%)
35
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

were heads of departments while 19(46.3%) were Assembly members or Unit committee
members. The respondents are people working with the Municipal Assembly’s department or
are a community representative of the local government. This group of respondents are
considered key stakeholders of the planning process and therefore valid responses could be
obtained. Besides these, two focus group discussions were held. The first focus group
discussion was with the DPCU. The second one was with Unit committee members. An
observation of a plan review meeting was also undertaken to strengthen reliability. The
details of the sample are given in table 5 below.

Table 3: Sample Description

No. Parameter Sample size Percentage
1 Survey Category
Heads of Departments 22 56.7
Assembly and Unit Committee 19 46.3
members
Total 41
2 Semi-structured Category
Heads of Departments 12 54.54
Assembly members/chairmen of 8 36.36
sub-committees
Traditional Authority 2 9.09
Total 22
3 Focus Group
Unit Committees 8(1 group) -
DPCU 13(1group) -
4 Observation
MPCU Plan review meeting 19 officers -
Source: Author’s Field Work 2013

4.3 Demographic Profile of Respondents

4.3.1 Semi-structured Interviews

The demographic characteristics of the 22 respondents for the semi-structured interviews are
given in table 5. The demographic characteristics indicates that 15 (68.18%) of the
respondents were between the ages of 35 and 54 years while 7(31.82%) were above 55years.
With gender 18 (81.82%) were males. Actually, this was expected since only two women are
Assembly members and also most of the heads of departments are men. But this has no
implication on the research since analysis is not on gender. Also with educational
background, 15 (68.18%) of respondents had tertiary level education. Table 5 gives details.

36
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Table 4: Demographic characteristics - Interview Respondents

NO. PARAMETER NUMBER OF PERCENTAGE

RESPONDENTS
1 Age in years
25-34 0 0
35-54 15 68.18
55 and above 7 31.82
2 Gender
Male 18 81.82
Female 4 18.18
3 Educational Levels
Tertiary 15 68.18
Senior 7 31.82
Secondary/Vocational
4 Junior Secondary 0 0
Middle School Leaving 0 0
Certificate
Source: Author’s Field work 2013

4.3.2 Survey
The demographic characteristics of the respondents for the survey focused on age, gender,
educational background and the number of years the respondent has worked with the
Municipal Assembly as a civil servant or Assembly member/Unit Committee Member
(elected or appointed). The age profile indicated that 27 respondents for the survey were
between the ages of 35 to 54 years. This represented 70.7%. On the gender of the survey
respondents, 28 of the respondents which is 68% were male whiles the remaining 13,
representing 31.7% were female. The profile of educational attainment of respondents
indicates that 22 of respondents have tertiary level education, which is 53.7% while 13 of
them representing 31.7 % have either secondary or vocational level education. Respondent’s
number of years working with the Municipal Assembly indicates that 23(56.1%) of them
have been with the Assembly between 5 to 8 years. The remaining respondents have been
with the local government less than 5 years or more than 8years. Table 6 provides the details.

Table 5: Demographic Characteristics - Survey Respondents

No. Parameter number of respondents Percentage

1 Age in years
25-34 3 7.3
35-54 29 70.7

37
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

55 and above 9 22.0

2 Gender
Male 28 68.3
Female 13 31.7
3 Educational Levels
Tertiary 22 53.7
Senior 13 31.7
Secondary/Vocational
Junior Secondary 1 2.4
Middle School Leaving 5 12.2
Certificate
4 Number of years worked
with Local government
1-4 9 22.0
5-8 23 56.1
9 and above 9 22.0
Source: Author’s fieldwork, 3013

4.3.3 Demographic Profile - Implication for the Study

The demographic description gives an idea of the people who gave responses for the study. It
can be said that responses came from very experienced and qualified people, majority of
whom have worked with the local government between five and eight years or more.
Majority also have higher level of education and therefore understand the issues being
investigated. All the key staff as well as chairmen of sub-committee who had to be
interviewed we duly contacted. Besides all the respondents have participated in the planning
process and therefore add to the validity of the findings of this research.

4.4 Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation

The factors that influence participation were categorised into three groups in the conceptual
framework. These are therefore grouped in that order for ease of discussion. The analysis and
findings combine the interviews, survey responses, focus group discussions, observation and
content analysis (secondary data).

4.4.1 Organisational Context Factors

The indicators measured under the organisational context variable was the allocation of
adequate financial resources for planning, timely release of funds, timely release of policy
and planning guidelines, top managements’ involvement and presence at meetings and the
freedom and flexibility to approach participatory activities.

38
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

1. Adequate and timely release of financial resources for planning activities

The analysis of the survey responses indicates that all the indicators are very influential on
participation. But of most influence is the allocation of adequate funding for the planning
process activities that is 75.6% of respondents. The flexibility to adopt various approaches is
second influential, at 70.7%. Besides, 68.3% of respondents perceived the release of the
guidelines as very influential on participation. Top management commitment to the process
was perceived as very influential by 56.1% of respondents whiles 29.3% perceived it as
extremely influential. Timely release of funds for the participatory process was perceived
very influential by 53.7% of respondents probably because most respondent did not have
information on the time the funds are requested and released. The expert interviews and the
secondary data analysis actually shed more light on the release. The release delayed and
affects the process. Details are given in subsequent pages. The figure 11 gives details of the
responses analysed.

Figure 11: Influence of organisational factors on participation

80.0 75.6
68.3 70.7
70.0
60.0 53.7 56.1
Percentage

50.0
not at all influential
40.0 29.3
30.0 slightly influential
19.5 19.5 17.1
20.0 12.2 somewhat influential
10.0
very influential
0.0
funds to funds policy and top flexbility and extremely influential
facilitate released on planning management freedom to
participation time guidelines commitment approach
release

Source: Author’s Fieldwork 2013

Responses from the interviews on the adequacy of financial resources and how it influence
participation supports the survey findings. Majority of respondents, 16 said financial
resources were not adequate and also not released on time and that it influence participation
very much. In the view of department heads interviewed, the inadequate funds affect all
aspect of the planning process. That is meetings cannot be organised or the number to be
organised has to be reduced. Financial Incentives cannot be paid; the planning team is not
able to organise community level planning dialogues all because it takes funds to undertake
all most of these activities. The remaining 6 respondents believed that financing very much
influence participation but that the Local government has adequate funds which need to be
mobilise to support projects and programmes implementation. This perception was held by
some community representatives. On the release of funds, the budget unit indicated that, they
use allocation from the District Assembly Common Fund (DACF). So when the release of
that funds delays, it also delays the release of funds for planning activities. This
notwithstanding, it was stated that the local government authority has other commitments,
and sometimes planning activities is not seen as a priority.

39
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

The focus group discussion with the DPCU, confirmed strongly that inadequate funding is a
major influence on the participatory process and contributes, from their view about 70% of
all the challenges. The focus group discussions with the unit committee members also
confirmed the perception but stated that the local government is capable of generating its own
local revenue instead of depending on central government. To illustrate these views:
A community representative stated, ‘’the Assembly does not have enough funds looking at
their commitment and the funds they generate, it is inadequate. This seriously influences
effective participation because they cannot invite all the people who can contribute very
well. They have the potential to generate funds though’’.
An expert with the planning team expressed his view this way, ‘’ Funding is a major issue.
We prepare activity based budget and they say reduce it. We can pay only that much. I
mean it is difficult. We issue letters to the Zonal Councils to invite identifiable groups in
their areas but because of financial constraints we restrict the invitation to between 35 to
40 participants. We need to engage more people, we even need to start community by
community and have their plans before we move to the Zonal councils. Participatory
Planning is costly but it is difficult for them to sink money into it’’.
The table 7 gives details of the budgetary allocation and releases for the 2010 participatory
planning process with its United States (US) Dollar equivalent. The exchange rate was
obtained from the Central Bank of Ghana web site www.bog.gov.gh on the 31st of July; 2013.
It can be seen that, it took eight months after the first amount was released to pay the final
tranche, that is 3rd August 2010 to 7th April, 2011. It is important to note that, the funds were
released in the first and second years of the plan period, the period in which the process
should have been completed and the document submitted to the NDPC. This confirms
respondents assertion that the release of funds delays and influence participation.

Table 6: Budget for the Participatory Planning Process - 2010

Actual Released
Budget Date GH₵/US Dollar
Allocation 2010 Amount Approved equivalent Date Released
Approved
Gh ₵ / US$ 1st Release
(Gh ₵) equivalent

9,000.00.00 GH₵ 9,000.00 16th July, 2010 GH ₵ 4,000.00 3rd Aug. 2010
(US$ 6,140.82) (US$ 2,729.26)
2nd Release

GH₵ 5,000.00 7th April, 2011

(US$ 3,411.57)
Source: authors Field work 2013 based on 2010 DACF Budget
NOTE: Exchange rate as at 31st December, 2010 – US$1= GH₵ 1.4656
Exchange rate as at 30th December, 2011 – US$1= GH₵ 1.6024

40
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

2. Release of policy and planning guidelines

The planning guidelines and policy documents are released to local government authorities to
facilitate the plan preparation process and also ensure that local government priorities are in
line with that of the national government. From this perspective, planning authorities depend
very much on it for their planning activities. Experts interviewed on the release of the
planning guidelines and policy documents indicate that they are not released on time and this
shortens the period for the planning activities. It was stated that, the 2010 to 2013 guidelines
was released late and they had less than three months to prepare and submit the development
plan. From respondents’ perception, they are unable to study the documents adequately when
they receive them late.
An expert with the planning team stated: ‘’ for the 2010 planning period we were able to
meet the deadline, but I should say the timing is not adequate. We need to start early, for
instance within six months we should receive the guidelines and policy documents but no.
It came late. Also from time to time they change certain portions or add to it and we have to
consult again. The people ask ‘’ what kind of plan is this?’’ in fact the guidelines were
issued in less than three months and we had to work within. This really affects the process,
because we have to rush or shorten the process and we are not able to involve a lot of
people.’’

3. Influence of top managements’ commitment

Majority of respondents, which is 18 believe that top management attend planning meetings
only at the Municipal Assembly level, they are not involved at the Zonal councils or
community levels. But all the 22 respondents believe their presence and commitment are very
influential factor for stakeholder participation. Of most influence in the perception of
respondents is the presence of the Coordinating Director and Chief Executive and their
commitment to making resources available timely. Actually, the planning guidelines states
that the MCD should lead the process but this is not done. During the two focus group
discussions, it came out strongly as a confirmation that top management do not attend Zonal
council planning meetings. They expressed the view that if heads of departments as well as
Coordinating Director and Municipal Chief Executive (MCE) should attend those meetings, it
would very much influence participation. This is because people want to see them, engage
with them and have that sense of belonging and being partners in development. During my
observation of the plan review meeting, I noticed that a senior official came to the meeting
but very late and stayed for a few moments and left. The other observation was that, her
presence made people emphasize their challenges especially with regards to funding of their
projects and programmes. When she left even though the meeting continued in terms of the
presentations the emphasis was reduced.
From a community representative: ‘’ for top management, they are involved. At the Zonal
councils they do not attend at all. If they attend people would really appreciate and attend.
May be they do not have the time. They most of the time say, I have a meeting in Accra,
this and that. Sometimes it is true but they need to make time for the people and planning.
They should attend because it would help a lot. They also have to make other resources
available’’
An expert with the planning team said:
‘’at the community level the MCE and MCD are not involved it is only the Planning
officer and the budget officer. But if the MCE should appear, actually it would influence

41
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

participation greatly. We have not taken it into account because they always say it is the
planners work. I think they should be more involved in various ways’’.
4. Influence of flexibility in participatory approach
The planning guidelines describes some strategies for the planning processes but it is
accepted by 15 respondents that the Assembly has the flexibility to approach the participatory
planning process and these would rope in more stakeholder inputs. The other 7 respondents’
believes that even though the flexibility is there, the strategies being used are too limited, it
does not influence participation. The interviews revealed the strategies or approaches as
meetings with sub-committees, meetings with heads of departments, public hearing, town hall
meetings (Zonal Councils) and questionnaires (for list of projects). This notwithstanding, it
was stated that financial constraint does not allow them to explore more strategies and even
the aforementioned strategies are limited in terms of those who can participate. The
questionnaires are also not for comprehensive needs assessment but to capture infrastructure
needs. The flexibility to approach the process, even though perceived as influential, have
serious constraints. Some of the responses are as follows:
From a department: ‘’we have only meetings to present our inputs; whiles we can have real
workshops for thematic groups to do real analysis of situations to improve the plan. The
engagement strategies are too limited, it does not allow a lot of people to participate’’.
An interview with two experts brought out the following: ’’ We have the flexibility to adopt
other strategies to involve people, but if the time is short what can you do? But we use
strategies like meetings with the various sub-committees, public hearing, questionnaires
are given to Assembly members for inputs from their communities and town hall meetings.
I think these strategies are effective and influence participation as well as the quality to
some extent’’.
‘’We only go through the sub-committees to collect information since they have their
allowances already budgeted for. In fact, as to whether they actually consult in their
communities we cannot guarantee’’ (SIC).
Conclusions on influence of organisational factors
It can be concluded that all the organisational factors are perceived by respondents as
influencing participation very much. But of most influence is the inadequacy of funding to
facilitate the process and top management commitment. In the view of respondents this factor
affects other activities in the participatory process including limiting the number of
stakeholders who are involved. Much as there is flexibility to approach the process, once
again respondents perceive the inadequate funding as inhibiting the exploration of more
options.

4.4.2 Socio-economic Factors

Socio-economic factors are also seen in theory as influencing participation. The indicators
measured as to how they influence participation in the study area were: perceived influence
of regular source of income/employment, prior experience in participation, influence of
cultural values as well as skills and knowledge.
The results of the survey corroborate the views expressed during the interviews. The figure
12 shows that respondents’ perceive previous experience in participation as very influential
on their participation which is 70.7% of responses. Also 53.7% of respondents’ perceived
skills as being very influential on participation whiles about 20% considered it as extremely
influential. Only 9.8% and 14.6 perceived cultural values and employment as very influential.
42
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Figure 12: Influence of Socio-economic factors on participation

80.0% 70.7%
Percentage of respodents

70.0%
60.0% 53.7%
not at all influential
50.0%
40.0% slightly influential
30.0% somewhat influential
20.0% 14.6%
9.8%
10.0% very influential
0.0% extremely influential
employment experience cultural values skills and
knowledge

Source: Author’s Fieldwork 2013

a. Influence of income/employment and previous experience in participation

process
The majority, which is 16 out of the 22 respondents, did not perceive their employment or
regular source of income as influencing their participation. This is expected because for the
heads of departments, attending meetings is part of their work schedule as local government
staff. Some community representatives however consider it as influential since they have to
ask permission among others to be part of the process. But they concede that all they need is
adequate time or notice for meetings.
Previous experience in participation is also perceived by the majority (18) as very influential
for effective participation. They explain that previous experience builds their capacity in
terms of knowledge, ability to relate to other stakeholders, talk in public and also ability to
accept other views. The other four respondents said it is somewhat influential. The following
views were expressed:
From a department: ‘’I am a member of the MPCU, so I have to be involved. But I think I
have gained experience over the years and it is a great asset’’.
From a community representative: ‘’also the traditional authority looks at the experience of
the representative before asking the person to represent the Association. I think it helps a
lot. My job is not that influential on my participation, I can always obtain permission’’.

b. Influence of Cultural beliefs and values

Cultural beliefs and values on the other hand are not perceived by the majority of the
respondents as influencing participation. Most respondents (19) believe that, the municipality
is fast urbanising and cultural values and beliefs are somehow not critical issues. It was
however expressed that there are still some few communities that have days of not going to
the farms and these days are used for meetings. An instance is a community called Mayera
where on Fridays farmers do not go to the farm. The cultural issue were expressed in various
ways as follows:
From a department’s perspective: ‘’cultural issues are not hindrance to participation in this
municipality. Everybody is free to participate, but I think may be the skills are not there to
enable them participate’’.
43
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

From two community representatives: ‘’in this municipality we do not have cultural issues
that prevent participation. If women do not talk at meetings then it is because of
inadequate expertise in the area of discussion or no training and others.’’
From the expert’s view point: ‘’Oh, I do not think culture is any great influence. We
normally find out from the opinion leaders, especially areas that are not highly urbanised
the days that are convenient and it works. But we do not have much of such communities’’.

c. Influence of skills and knowledge

On the other hand, skills and knowledge was expressed as being very influential on
stakeholder participation. 18 of the respondents perceived their skills and knowledge as
influencing their participation. They explained that skills enable them express their views and
also understand the various planning issues. Some responses were given as follows:
From a department: ‘’I think I have the competence, skills and knowledge and that helps
me to participate in the planning process. Not only in my area of specialisation. No, my job
does not influence me ’’.
From an expert: ‘’skills and knowledge are very important. It would interest you to know
that with the radio stations, people are aware of development and know their rights so it
influence them to participate’’.
My observation at the plan review meeting actually confirmed, that skills and knowledge are
very influential on participation. Most people who presented really indicated they have the
skills and knowledge to present, explain issues and also communicate exactly what they
wanted to communicate.

Conclusion on influence of socio-economic factors

The analysis and findings from the interviews, observation and survey of the indicators point
to the fact that stakeholders perceive previous experience in participation as well as skills and
knowledge to be very influential on participation. In their view they are able to express
themselves, accept other people’s views and contribute well because of the skills and
experience they have. On cultural values and employment however, it was perceived as not
influential at all. In respondents view, the urban area does not have any predominant cultural
believes and values due to the diversity of people. Employment or the occupation of
stakeholders was also perceived as slightly influential by the majority.

4.4.3 Process Factors

The measurement of the concept process factors was based on perceptions of trust (openness
and transparency) of the planning process, feedback mechanism, acceptance of stakeholder
inputs and views and influence of incentives.
Analysis of the survey responses indicated that all the indicators were very influential, but of
most influence is the payment of incentives which 60.9% of respondents’ said it was very
influential while 36.8% said it was extremely influential. Openness and transparency
followed at 58.5% very influential and 34.1% said it was extremely influential. Also 53.7%
of respondents said feedback mechanism was very influential. Figure 13 provides the
remaining information. Some reasons from the interviews such as the need to reward

44
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

intellectual contribution and the fading out of voluntarism, could explain perceptions of
payment of incentives as very influential or extremely influential.

Figure 13: Influence of process factors on participation

70.0% 58.5% 60.9%

60.0% 53.7% 51.2%
Respodents %

50.0%
40.0%
30.0% not at all influential
20.0%
slightly influential
10.0%
0.0% somewhat influential
very influential
extremely influential

Source: Author’s Fieldwork 2013

a. Chi-squire test – perceived influence of incentives

A test of significance between departments and the community representatives on perceived
influence of incentives on participation indicated that there is no significant difference at
0.073 P-value.

Table 7: Test of significance

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

a
Pearson Chi-Square 14.367 8 .073

Likelihood Ratio 18.500 8 .018

N of Valid Cases 41

a. 12 cells (80.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
.20.

b. Openness and Transparency of the planning process

There were varied views on the openness of the planning process but generally, respondents
believed that it influence participation very much. Most respondents 18 perceived the
planning process to be generally open and transparent. They explain that every participant is
given the opportunity to express his or her views. They also state that the officers’ in charge
of the meetings facilitate and ensure that people have fair opportunities to make inputs and
suggestions. The DPCU meetings, it was said offer the opportunities to the heads of
departments to present their inputs which are discussed together and agreed upon. But
respondents’ express the view that after the meetings, the process is not very open, especially
with implementation. At the Zonal Council meetings however, a respondent stated that the
45
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

meetings are not well structured, not focused and development issues are discussed in a rush.
As a result it does not give the required input or feedback. Some of the responses include:
From a department: ‘’the planning process is very open. No one is intimidated you have the
platform to express yourself. So it encourages us to keep going’’.
From a community representative: ‘’Yes, trust, people talk on issues that help them live
better life but lack of implementation is the issue. Stakeholders trust each other but the
Assembly is not totally trusted. Because they promise a market and the market is not
implemented. Trust is about 40%. It is affecting the quality of participation somehow but
not totally’’.
‘’Oh, for trust, you know this unit committee, Assembly members and the technocrats there
is always friction even though we sit and discuss issues. Because the Assembly does not
implement what they say they would. So people no longer trust them. But it does not affect
the people attending the meetings too much’’.
During one of the focus group discussions, respondents had a similar view of the process.
They express the view that everything is done within a few days (3days). Even though they
perceive the meetings as offering the opportunity to make inputs the entire process is not
open because after the meetings, they are not involved again. Their programmes are hardly
implemented. This statement was made during the focus group discussion with the unit
committees: ‘’we interact and make inputs. After the planning meeting, we know nothing.
The departments do their own plans and we do not know why. We do not think the
Assembly is open, it is 50% open’’(SIC).

c. Interactive Feedback System

All department heads interviewed indicated that they receive some feedback after meetings
but it delays a lot. Most times minutes of previous meetings are given out during the meetings
instead of days before. It was emphasized that this influences participation and its quality.
Because in their view it is difficult to read minutes of meetings and contribute to discussions
at the same time. However, stakeholders who participate at the Zonal council level indicated
that they do not receive any feedback and this really influences their participation since they
do not have information on issues discussed. Even the final list of projects and programmes
for the 4-year plan period, they do not know. The perspectives from the departments were
expressed as follows:
‘’We do not get feedback of decisions regularly. And even they do not give it officially.
Sometimes they give only sections of documents when the programme is ongoing not in
advance’’.
‘’As for feedback we are given but not on time. Most of the time it is given during the
meetings and we have to read while the meeting is ongoing. It affects the quality of
participation since we read and discuss at the same time’’.
The Zonal Council perspective stated: ‘’No feedback is given by the Municipal Assembly
after planning meetings. They did not even give as anything, no document to help us how
much more feedback? I do not know why they do those things. But I think if they give
feedback it would influence us a lot because you remember exactly what was discussed and
then we can continue from there, but no!’’.
My observation of a plan review meeting confirmed the view that, feedback is given during
meetings, I observed that the minutes of the meeting held in February 2013 were distributed

46
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

at the meeting organised on the 11th of June, 2013. Most officers started complaining and
protesting that it was not the best for minutes of previous meetings to be given on the day it is
to be discussed. I also observed that, when it came to the discussion of the minutes, people
started reading it.

d. Acceptance and consideration of citizens’ inputs

On the acceptance of inputs and views and how it influences participation, all the 22
respondents said their inputs are accepted and this influences their participation. However,
the inability of the Municipal Assembly to respond by implementing their inputs is what
discourages participation. All respondents from the departments stated that projects and
programmes are rolled over and over. Some stated that projects and programmes are moved
from one plan period to the other. In their view this does not allow critical thinking and the
development of strategic interventions. From the departments perspective inputs are accepted
totally with few changes, but at the Zonal council respondents’ gave varied views of what is
accepted. It was stated that not all inputs are accepted whiles a few believed all inputs are
accepted. During interviews with the experts however, it was explained that it is the
prioritisation and review of the projects and programmes that determine the final list of
interventions for the 4-year strategic plan. They stated that initial prioritisation is done at the
Zonal councils but the final one is done at the Municipal Assembly level.
Some of the departments’ and Zonal council views and the expert explanations are illustrated
as follows: Response from a department: ‘’yes, our views and inputs are considered but not
implemented and this discourages people from participating. It actually influences me’’
Response from zonal council: ‘’The Assembly does not accept and consider inputs and
views totally, they accept about 40%. But when it comes to implementation, in Ghana most
of the Assemblies rely on the District Assembly Common Fund (DACF). Accepting inputs
influence and encourage people to participate but lack of implementation also influences,
we belief frequent engagement will change cause’’.
Response from expert interview: ‘’In fact we capture everything and then we prioritise them
first with them and later at the Assembly. At the public hearing there are fights because
some projects have been dropped. We explain to them that funds are limited and also there
are thresh holds to observe for projects, example not all communities should have a Junior
High School (JHS). But especially the Assembly members would not understand for
obvious reasons they want all sorts of projects. They sometimes even accuse officials of
embezzling their monies because the project is budgeted for and not implemented. Our
inability to implement is actually affecting participation. People say, you came here last
time and what have you done for us?’’.
My observations at the plan review meeting also pointed to the fact that the inability of the
local government to implement development interventions is really influencing participation.
Some departments did not present reports others presented and stated; the report is the same
as the previous one, because funds have not been given for the projects to be implemented. At
the MPCU focus group discussions also, the issue came out that departments have budget
ceilings beyond which the Assembly cannot support them. But most departments present but
most were unaware of these all this while.

47
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

e. Evidence of payment of incentives

The responses from interviewees indicated that the Municipal Assembly give different
incentives which are determined by the duration of the meeting as well as location. For
meetings that are organised at the Local authority’s offices, they give a combination of
incentives like Snacks, Lunch and financial incentives like sitting allowances or travelling
and transport allowances (T&T). The amount paid during the 2010 participatory process was
GH₵25.00 which US$17.06 per meetin g. At the Zonal council however incentives are
limited to only Snacks and Lunch.
Respondents’ views on how incentives influence their participation produced two main
responses. The majority, which is 16 out of the 22 respondents, believed the payment of
incentives influence their participation because it motivates them. The other 6 respondents
made up of both Assembly members and departments believed that it does not influence their
participation because it is their job and they are motivated to participate in development. This
notwithstanding, some respondents indicated that most officers show their resentment by
attending meetings late, submitting report late or not submitting at all as well as not attending
meetings regularly or sending representatives. This was also observed at the plan review
meeting. The meeting started very late, that is, instead of 10:00am the meeting started at
11:37am about one and half hour late and some officers did not present reports. They also
requested for their previous sitting allowance and the finance officer’s representative was
asked to ensure it was paid before the next meeting. During the meeting, snacks and lunch
were provided.
A respondent from a department who said incentive is influential put it this way:
‘’for the incentives like sitting allowances, the less we talk about it the better. The
allowances are small and come after a very long time. It actually de-motivates me. Most
people talk and threaten not to attend meetings and that they have other things doing’’.
A respondent at the Zonal council level also stated: ‘’on the issue of sitting allowance and
other incentives, at the municipal Assembly they give incentives like T&T, sitting
allowances and food. But the adequacy of the amount given is what needs to be talked
bout. At the community level, no incentives are given. The Unit committees should be
helped. I believe T&T allowances would influence the quality and help a lot because now
voluntarism is dwindling and if they motivate people it will enable people to participate
more. Even though a few people attend, they go back disappointed and it affects future
programmes’’.
From the expert’s perspective: ‘’on the issue of incentives, normally when we go to the
Zonal councils we give only snacks or lunch when it’s for a long period. It is only when
they come to the Assembly that we give T&T. When it is public hearing, we do not pay
because the people are many. For the heads of departments also, it is a real factor, for
instance the DPCU, we pay them sitting allowance but when the money delays or the last
one is not paid and we invite them they are reluctant to attend. For other internal planning
meetings we give snacks or lunch depending on the duration of the meeting. I would say it
influence the quality and effectiveness of participation’’.

Conclusion on influence of process factors

From the analysis and findings, it can be said that all the process factors are perceived as
influential but of most influence are the acceptance of inputs and views as well as payment of
incentives, especially T&T allowances. These two indicators had some respondents stating
48
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

that they are extremely influential. On the inputs, respondents said the inability of the local
government to respond to their needs by implementation is a worrying issue. There is
however no difference between heads of departments and Assembly members perceptions on
the payment of incentives as given by the chi-square results.

4.5 Stakeholder Mobilisation

Stakeholder mobilisation is also seen in theory as a factor that influence stakeholder
participation. In this research, the indicators used to measure this concept were, Existence of
stakeholder list with clear representation, adequate information about the planning process
given, local authority working through established groups and local mobilisation channels
and clear role of stakeholders established and communicated.
The analysis of the survey responses indicates that 70.7% of respondents perceive adequate
information, provision of documents and sensitizations as very influential on participation
whiles 68.3 % perceive clear roles as very influential. Also stakeholder list with clear
representation is perceived as very influential by 65.9% of respondents. Meanwhile, it was
stated that such a list does not exist and this influence the quality of participation negatively.
They also stated that even if it existed; financial constraints would not allow the list to be
used. The figure 14 explains the analysis.

Figure 14: Influence of stakeholder mobilisation on participation

80.0% 70.7%
65.9% 68.3%
70.0% 63.0%
60.0%
Respondent %

50.0% not al all influential

40.0% slightly influential
30.0%
somewhat influential
20.0%
10.0% very influential
0.0% extremely influential
stakeholder list adequate local clear roles
information mobilisation communicated
channels

Source: Author’s fieldwork 2013

a. Existence of stakeholder list with clear representation

It is believed that stakeholder analysis can help planning authorities to identify and categorise
stakeholders for effective engagement. This is based on their influence and ability to affect
the policy decisions. Respondents had varied views as to whether there existed a stakeholder
list with clear representation. There was a consensus on the list for Assembly members, heads
of departments and unit committees but the other stakeholders most respondents were not
aware of such a list. Twelve (12) respondents indicated that there may be a stakeholder list
even though they have not seen it whiles the remaining 10 respondents believes there is no
such comprehensive list. All respondents believe however that such a comprehensive list

49
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

would influence stakeholder participation very much. They perceive their current situation,
which is the practice of giving quota of stakeholders who could participate in the planning
process a great set back. Especially when there has not been able to undertake a stakeholder
analysis for stakeholder groups to be well represented.
Interview with the experts confirmed the responses that there has not been any stakeholder
analysis with comprehensive list that is representative of all stakeholders. Invitation is done
by contacting departments that have some list. These situations they believe influence
participation very much since representation is compromised, especially in the situation
where invitation of stakeholders is entrusted to the Zonal councils to facilitate at that level.
The following responses explain the issues:
Response from a department: ‘’ we are not mobilised, I should say. Even though there may
be stakeholder list to pick people from, they cannot provide the incentives so they limit it.
Heads of departments do not participate in the Zonal council level planning meetings,
why?’’.
A Zonal council Response: ‘’We have stakeholders’ list example hoteliers, GPRTU and
residents associations. But they are not well represented. They ask you to bring two or
three from your area. How well representative is these people. This strategy and the
responses from those who come are not enough. We need to work more for them to come
more, why 2 or 3 stakeholders. It is the funding, that is why they do these, but it affects the
quality of inputs’’.
From the perspective of an expert with the planning unit: ‘’we do not have stakeholder list
for all. We sometimes contact the departments for instance, cooperatives or Youth
departments. But we do not have a comprehensive one. I believe a composite one would
help the quality of participation’’.

b. Adequate information about the planning process given,

The analysis of responses on adequate information about the planning process indicates that
most respondents, (19) believe they are not given adequate information about the planning
process. They explain, that they are either given portions of documents, that is some heads of
departments whiles others do not receive anything at all including Zonal council
stakeholders. Respondents perceive this as influencing their participation because; they are
unable to contribute effectively during planning meetings. At one of the focus group
discussions, a respondent stated that, they are not mobilised in any way at the Zonal councils
and they are very much worried. They stated that they are just informed to attend meetings
without being prepared in anyway. This in their view affects their participation because they
have no information on the national policies and are unable to feed into it. Some responses
from various perspectives are given to illustrate.
Response from a department: ‘’I did not receive any comprehensive document to facilitate
my participation, no clear roles, no schedule of meetings to let us prepare our minds. We
are heads of departments and we have other things doing’’.
Community representative’s perspective: ‘’They give documents on the meeting day and
brief people on the meeting day, how? we are not computers. They need to give all the
needed information about the process, and then we can effectively participate. Our
attitudes are also an issue. People do not read even when documents are given’’
‘’The Assembly’s way of mobilising people to participate is far below average. The
Assembly know those to invite but prior notice is not given to let you know what is going to
50
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

be discussed, no. If we do not have information in advance we only go and listen and
contribute if we can, especially the few who have the knowledge of the area being
discussed. This actually affects the quality of the inputs, because only few people would
talk and the rest accept it just like that.

c. Local authority working through established groups and local mobilisation

channels
Responses to this indicator point to the view that the local authority work through local
mobilisation channels. That is, 12 respondents held this view. They perceive the role of
Assembly members and the Zonal councils as being the main local channels that the
Assembly use to reach and involve stakeholders. Ten respondents said the Assembly does not
use local mobilisation channels effectively because the Assembly members are not the only
channels. Some of the views from two perspectives are given as follows: A view from a
department:
‘’I think they use local channels especially the Assembly members and the Zonal councils.
I think it influences participation if we do it well.’’
The view of a community leader: In fact, for the planning in my area they have not
approached me to mobilise my people for them to make inputs into the plan. I do not know
if they use other people as channels in my area of jurisdiction. If they should do this it
would influence participation but they do not’’.
From the focus group discussions with the unit committee, it was gathered that most of the
Unit committees at the community level are not functioning and therefore cannot be used
effectively as local mobilisation channels. They stated that information channelled through
unit committee members would not get to the majority of the people. It was stated ‘’we
cannot work without being motivated, but for us in this area we do it because we want our
community to develop’’. This indicates that the local mobilisation channels are not working
effectively, contrary to the perceptions of some of the staff of the local government authority.

d. Clear role of stakeholders established and communicated.

The responses indicated varied views. All heads of departments and Assembly members
believed they knew their roles and it influenced their participation. At the community focus
group discussions however, it was brought to the fore that they are not informed specifically
what role they have to play. They argued that all they are told is to attend a meeting, in their
view this does not promote effective participation. This implies they go there unprepared and
provide whatever they have as their inputs. This certainly does not represent community
needs and aspirations. This was expressed in various ways as given below:
A response from a department: ‘’we as heads of departments know our roles so no problem,
but the other stakeholders. I think stakeholders cut across which includes heads of
departments, Assembly members and community people. Knowing our roles as stakeholder
groups would influence our participation very much’’,
A response from an expert: ‘’stakeholders at the community level do not know their roles
until they attend meetings at the zonal councils. The first day of our planning meetings are
used to sensitise them and the next days they are able to contribute. We use three days

51
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

which actually affects the quality of participation. We need about a week but funds
available would not permit. Clear roles would influence participation to an extent.

Conclusions on stakeholder mobilisation

It can be concluded that, the provision of adequate information through sensitization and
provision of the needed documents is perceived as the most influential of all the indicators.
Clear roles are also seen as influential. The local govern, it was established does not have a
comprehensive stakeholder list and this influence the calibre of stakeholders engaged in the
planning process.

4.6 Facilitation and Integration of Self organised Initiatives

The indicators adopted to measure this concept are number of self-organised
initiatives/projects and kind of support given to such initiatives by the local government.

5. Number of self-organised initiatives by sector and actions taken to support

The sources of data for the measurement of this indicator were interviews and secondary
data. The table 9 gives a list of projects from secondary data and all the five (5) projects were
in the water and sanitation sector. This list in my view is not exhaustive because I could not
get access to the closed file on the projects. This notwithstanding, it give some idea about the
nature of request from groups and individuals in the communities.

Table 8: List of self-organised initiatives (2010-2011)

No. Initiator Sector Year Request Kind of support
for support
1 Pokuase Amanfrom Water and 2010 Polytank
Development Association Sanitation (Water Storage
Tank)
2 Council of Elders Water and 2-10 10-seater KVIP
Pokuase Abensu Sanitation
3 Kpobiman Women Water and 2011 Polytank
Association sanitation

4 Presbyterian Church of Water and 2011 Polytank

Ghana, Otsirikomfo Sanitation (₵900.00)
5 Reginald Quashie Water and 2011 Borehole
Sanitation
Source: Author’s Field work 2013 - Self Help Projects File

The responses from the interviews however revealed that there were other initiatives from
other sectors such as electrification, education, agro-processing (agriculture), Information,
Communication Technology (ICT) and health. All respondents were of the same view that

52
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

supporting self-organised initiatives influence participation but it takes the Municipal

Assembly a very long time to support. This, in the view of respondents discourages such
initiatives. On the actions taken by the municipal Assembly to integrate the initiatives,
financial support was seen as the main action. Other actions include material support that is,
supply of electricity poles and building materials and technical advice.
A respondent puts his experience with self-organised initiatives this way: ‘’ the one I have in
my community was initiated by me. Others are initiated by may be Assembly member or
local youth groups. In my community I started a Library project with the community
members to a certain stage with the support of Action Aid Ghana. We now need the
support of the Assembly for computers for internet. I believe they may come; the request
was made about two years ago. Also a community health post, the Assembly provided
technical support. I think it influence participation based on the leadership ability to
support. The initiative was not put in the plan, may be the Assembly member did not do
so’’.
The findings from the survey corroborate that of the interviews. From table 10, 58.5% of the
survey respondents said Assembly give financial support while 31.7% said assembly also
provides technical and expert advice. The others represented the building material given at
times as support to such initiatives. The table 10 provides the summary.

Table 9: Actions to integrate self-organised Initiatives

Action Frequency Percent

Valid Technical/ expert advise 13 31.7

Financial support/budget line for the

24 58.5
initiatives

Others 4 9.8

Total 41 100.0

Source: Author’s Fieldwork 2013.

The analysis of budgeted amounts for self-organised initiatives over the four-year plan period
revealed that only 13% of budgeted amount for the fiscal year 2010 was actually released.
For the fiscal year 2011, only 15% of budgeted amount was released. Subsequently, there
have been no budgetary allocations. Interview with the expert in this area indicated that such
request could be catered for under the contingency budget. But the local government’s
financial situation makes it difficult to support such initiatives frequently and on time. In his
view, this delay does not promote self-help projects and programmes. He stated further that
the local government uses most often part of its share of the DACF to support such projects.
The analysis of the total DACF budget for 2010 and 2011 revealed that in 2010, only 1.5%
and in 2011 only 0.7% of the amount received was allocated for self-help projects. The total
amount of DACF received in 2010 was GH₵1,950,000.00 (US$ 1,330,513.1) and in 2011 it
was GH₵ 2,870,544.68 (US$ 1,791,403.32) out of which budgetary allocations were made.
The amount is given both in Ghana cedis as well as its dollar equivalent to allow all readers
to appreciate the kind of support given. Table 11 and the figure 15 provide the details.

53
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Table 10: Financial support for self-help projects 2010-2013

Fiscal Budgeted Budgeted Amount Amount % of Budgeted
Year Amount Amount $ Released Released $ amount released
(GH ₵) equivalent (GH ₵) equivalent (GH ₵)
2010 30,000.00 20,469.43 4,000.00 2,729.26 13
2011 20,000.00 12,481.28 3,000.00 1,872.19 15
2012 - - - - -
2013 - - - - -
Total 50,000.00 32,950.71 7,000.00 4,601.45 14
Source: Author’s Field work 2013

Figure 15: Budgetary allocation and actual releases - Self-help Projects 2010-2013

35,000.00 30,000.00
Amount in Ghana Cedis

30,000.00
25,000.00 20,000.00
20,000.00
15,000.00 Budgeted Amount
10,000.00
4,000.00 3,000.00 Actual Released
5,000.00 - - - -
0.00
2010 2011 2012 2013
Fiscal Year

Source: By Author based Ga West Municipal Assembly, MTEF Budgets

The analysis of the survey responses on whether the support of the Assembly influence
effective participation revealed that, it was somewhat influential. That is 23 (56.1%) of the
respondents. While 26.8 respondents said it was very influential. This is expected because
the local government support, according the interview respondents delays and sometimes no
support at all. Figure 16 provides the detail analysis.
Figure 16: Influence of actions to integrate Self-help projects

60.0% 56.1%
50.0%
40.0% 26.8%
30.0%
20.0% 12.2%
10.0% 4.9%
0.0%
not at all slightly influential somewhat very influential
influential influential

Source: Author’s Fieldwork 2013

54
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Conclusion on influence of support for self-help projects

Findings indicate that community level self-organised initiatives are in various sectors
including health, water and sanitation, education and ICT. Support to self-help projects is
mainly financial but expert advice and other in-kind support like the provision of construction
materials and electrification poles are given. These notwithstanding, the influence of these
support is perceived by respondents as somewhat influential because of the delays and most
times the inability of the Local government to honour requests.

4.7 Effective Stakeholder Participation

The study adopts Pretty (1995) typology of participation to assess effectiveness of
participation in the study area. Pretty’s typology provides seven levels of participation and it
is only from the 5th level upwards that some amount of effective participation emerges. The
study also focused on the number of stakeholders regularly participating in planning
meetings.

a. Number of stakeholders participating regularly

From the survey responses, 21 (51.2%) respondents said they participate sometimes, 10
(24.4%) said they participate often whiles 9 (21.9%) said they participate always. This
situation could be explained from the responses during the interviews. Participation is by
invitation and therefore one cannot attend all meetings. Also the perceived delays or non-
payment of sitting and T&T allowances could be an explanatory factor. Most respondents
interviewed indicated that they participate only when they are invited. This situation implies
that even when a stakeholder has knowledge in an issue being discussed, without invitation
one cannot participate. Figure 17 gives the details of the analysis.

Figure 17: Stakeholders participating regularly in planning meetings

60.0%
51.2%
50.0%

40.0%

30.0% 24.4%
21.9%
20.0%

10.0%
2.4%
0.0%
rarely sometimes often always

Source: Author’s Fieldwork 2013

The interview responses also corroborate the survey outcome since regularity varied from
respondent to respondent. Some respondents stated as follows:
55
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

From a department: ‘’I am not regular, there are a whole lots of other things to be done’’
‘’I would always participate unless I have other things doing. Even that, sometimes I go
there late even though it affects my opportunity to contribute’’.
From the expert’s perspective: ‘’ In fact, I have not observed but the Assembly members
are regular and the heads of departments even though they complain and attend meetings
late. But I must say the regularity depends on the invitation. When invited they attend,
when not they do not. We use the Assembly members and the Zonal councils to invite
groups but the limited number we allow is the problem’’.

b. Specific involvement of stakeholders – Levels of participation

The specific ways in which respondents have been involved in planning activities were
described in various ways. All the 22 respondents interviewed say they are not informed of
what the Municipal Assembly has decided on already. That is projects are not imposed on
them. Also all the respondents’ state they were not members of any smaller planning
committees for specific issues. These indicators represent the first and second levels of
Pretty’s typology of participation.
On the indicator of stakeholders being consulted on problem definition and information
gathering, responses varied from the departments and participants at the Zonal council level.
Majority of respondents from the departments indicated they are consulted on problem
definition but those at the zonal councils say they are not. It was however agreed by all
respondents that communities participate by providing land but no more labour because
projects implementation are awarded on contract. These indicators represents the third and
forth levels of Pretty’ participation typology.
On the perception of interactive shared decision making in the areas of strategies and project
selection, all the 22 respondents said they are involved at that level. On joint analysis and
joint development of action plans, 17 out of the 22 respondents’ said they are involved in
action planning. The indicators shared decision making and joint analysis and action planning
represents the fifth and sixth levels of Pretty’s typology. Some respondents expressed the
effectiveness or levels of their participation as follows:
From the departments: ‘’I was involved in the discussions and presentation of projects and
strategies. We sit and decide together. I am also involved in action planning’’.
From a Community representative: ‘’I am not consulted on problem definition and data
gathering but I do not know why. For traditional leaders we normally give land for the
projects and submit some development programmes for consideration. Gone are the days
when we participate by contributing labour, now it is no more. They give it out on contract.
We are not involved in any action planning meeting’’.
Expert’s response: ‘’they provide projects and programmes which we jointly prioritise even
at the Zonal council level. They have influence on the process, we do not decide for them’’.

They survey responses also shows a similar pattern. It can be seen from the table 24 that, only
12.2% of respondents agreed that they were given information on what is already decided on
by the local government authority whiles 53% agreed that they were consulted on problem
definition. On the indicator of being on a committee, only 9.8% agreed. Also, participation in
the area of skills, labour, land and knowledge 56.1% agreed. The analysis also indicates that
56
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

68.3% agree that they are involved in joint decisions in the strategic planning process. On
action planning 61.1% agreed that they are involved and this is mainly true for the heads of
departments. The Assembly members state however that they are involved indirectly by
approving the budget. The process is left for the technical officers.
It is important to note that the charts moves from lower level of participation and rise towards
effective levels of participation according to Pretty’s typology. Figure 18 provides the detail
analysis of effective participation.

Figure 18: Specific involvement of stakeholders in the participatory process

90.0
80.0
Precent of respondents

68.3
70.0 56.1 61.1
60.0 53.7
50.0
40.0
30.0 Strongly Disagree
20.0 9.8 12.2
10.0 Disagree
0.0
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree

Source: Author’s Field work 2013

A chi-squire test on the significant association of joint analysis and action planning with
being a head of department or Assembly member showed a significant difference at P<0.020.
This corroborates the interviews that technical officers are mainly participants in the action
planning process directly. Table 12 gives the result.

Table 11: Test of significance - Payment of Incentives

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

a
Pearson Chi-Square 18.107 8 .020

Likelihood Ratio 22.397 8 .004

N of Valid Cases 41

a. 12 cells (80.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is .20.

57
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

4.7.1 Stakeholder Influence on Decisions

The concept stakeholder influence on decisions was measured using four indicators. That is
perceptions that inputs influence the selection of key strategies, fair allocation of financial
resources and the location of projects. Also the perceptions of ownership the plan or the plan
containing a lot of local knowledge were measured.
The analysis indicates that all the 22 respondents interviewed say that their inputs influenced
the selection of key strategies and the location of projects. This is because what they submit
is accepted and captured in the plan. On their influence on the allocation of financial
resources however, 18 of the respondents said they had no influence at all, whiles the others
said they had influence to some extent. Those who believe they have influence to some
extent were technical staffs who were involved in preparing budget estimates or infrastructure
bills of quantities. The Assembly members on the other hand did not perceive their approving
the budget estimates as a way of influencing allocation of funds because they could not make
changes. On the issues of owing or supporting the MTDP, most respondent said they perceive
the plan as their own even though they are not given copies. The few who had copies said
they got it unofficially because of their relationships with those in charge.
The focus group discussions at the Zonal councils indicated that they did not know of such a
document (plan). The expert interviews confirmed the situation, that only the NDPC and the
Regional Coordinating Councils (RCC) we given copies of the Plan. It was however
acknowledged that the situation does not encourage participation since stakeholders;
especially at the Zonal Councils have no documents to refer to. Some respondents gave the
following account:
From a department: ‘’ I would say our views are accepted after full discussions at meetings.
So for the selection of strategies and projects I would say I have some influence, but when
it comes to implementation where financing is involved, no, I am not influential at all. But
for the location of projects I have influence. I was not given a copy of the plan, no’’.
Community Representative: ‘’On my influence on the process, I think so to some extent, but
not on funding. The plan has some local inputs to some extent because generally projects
come from various areas by the Assembly members. But I have not on any occasion seen
any community formulate their own plan and take it through the zones to the Assembly. I
have seen the MTDP 2010-2013 but the traditional authority does not have a copy to
enable them engage the Assembly. We have not asked for it and it is about time we ask for
it’’.
From expert view: ‘’I would say they have influence on the selection of strategies because
we request for it and they provide it at the various planning meetings. When it comes to the
financing however it takes a lot of technical considerations but their representatives who
are the Assembly members are involved’’.
‘’we do not give copies to the stakeholders, only the NDPC, RCC and the MCD. A copy is
also kept at the registry. The Zonal councils are not given because that is not where the
projects are implemented. we would consider and give them copies. I think it would
influence and motivate then to participate’’.

Further to respondents’ perceptions of influence, the survey finding sheds more light on the
views. On perceived influence of selection of key strategies and projects 58.5% of the survey
respondents said they are very influential 31.7 said they are somewhat influential. On
financing, 4.2% said they are very influential and 9.8% said they are somewhat influential.
58
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Also, 53% said they are very influential with the location of projects and 26% said they are
somewhat influential. On the perceived influence on allocation of financial resources,
Assembly members indicate even though they give approval at general Assembly meetings,
they are not directly involved in allocations. The allocation is seen as being in the hands of
management. Figure 19 provides some details.

Figure 19: Stakeholder perceived influence

70.0% 58.5%
Percent of respondents

60.0% 53.7%
50.0%
not at all influential
40.0% 31.7%
26.8% slightly influential
30.0%
20.0% 9.8% somewhat influential
10.0% 4.2%
0.0% very influential

seection of allocation of location of extremely influential

strategies financial projects
resources

Source: Author’s Fieldwork 2013

The survey findings give further insight into the interview responses on the perceived
ownership of the plan. Much as respondent expressed the view of owning the plan, they could
not assert strongly as to whether the plan contains a lot of local inputs or local government
dictated the inputs. This could be explained as the stakeholder representation at the various
planning meetings is not to expectation, given the fact that only two or three people are
invited from each electoral area. On perceived ownership of the development plan, 73.2% of
respondents said they support the output of the planning process, which is the Medium Term
Development Plan 2010-2013, but 14.6% remained neutral. Also 46.0% said they agree that
the process output contains a lot of local knowledge whiles 36% remained neutral on the
indicator. On the indicator whether the Assembly dictated the output which is the projects
and programmes, 39% of respondents disagreed and 34.1% remained neutral. Figure 20 gives
the details.

Figure 20: Stakeholder perceived ownership of the strategic plan

80.0% 73.2%
Percent of respodents

70.0%
60.0% 46.0%
50.0% strongly disagree
40.0% disagree
30.0%
20.0% neutral
10.0% 4.9%
0.0% agree
support output of output contains output were strongly agree
the process local knowledge dictated by
Assembly

Source: Author’s Fieldwork 2013

59
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

CHAPTER FIVE – Conclusions and Recommendations

5.0 Introduction
As noted in the chapter one, participation has had a long history of being promoted by
development organisations, governments and NGOs because of the perceived benefits.
Looking at the benefits of participation in development therefore, I deemed it important to
research into what motivates or influences people to participate because this knowledge
would contribute to make the participatory process attractive and successful. This research
therefore focused on factors that influence participation in the planning process and the Ga
West Municipality was chosen as the case study to measure to what extent theory can be
replicated in practice.
The objective of the study was to understand and map out the factors that influence the
quality of stakeholder participation in the strategic planning process. Various concepts were
defined to form the basis for the research and more importantly to draw conclusions. The
theory of participation underpinned this research and as such, the overall conclusion is based
on this theory. Specific conclusions are also drawn based on the five research questions in
line with the analysis and findings in the chapter 4. I wish to state that, the findings and
conclusions of this research apply to a very specific participatory process and therefore
cannot be generalised to other participatory activities. It is important however to state, based
on my experiences and discussions at various workshops in Ghana on local governments and
participation, that the situation is not significantly different from other municipalities in
Ghana.

5.1 Quality of Participation in the Planning Process – General

Conclusion
The analysis and findings of the study has brought to the fore how participation is being
practiced in the study area. It can be concluded that participation is not being practiced as the
planning guidelines stipulates in terms of the engagement or involvement of stakeholders and
the levels of planning meetings. Most stakeholders’ are not involved in the planning process
and the few that are engaged do not have enough resources in terms of time and funding to
effectively consult their electorates at the community level. The inputs that are submitted on
behalf of the communities are not very representative of the community members felt needs.

The theory of participation (Majors 2007) gives two kinds of participation which are
authentic and inauthentic attitudes of participation. It can be concluded that while the heads
of departments and most Assembly members can be said to be engaged to some extent with
authentic participation, that is, they are able to work together towards achieving common
goals in the development process (solidarity attitudes), they are not able to significantly
contest issues that are not agreed upon. It is important, especially where they have little
influence when it comes to allocation of financial resources for implementation. On the part
of the community level stakeholders, including unit committee members, NGOs, Research
Institutions and CBOs, they are mostly left out of the process and has resumed to inauthentic
kind of participation attitudes. That is, they either conform by accepting whatever is decided
by the few or have become unconcerned, that is non-involvement attitudes. This was
described by respondents as apathy on the part of citizens. It can be concluded that this
situation of involving few stakeholders, has affected negatively the quality of participation in
the planning process. From the survey, respondents could not conclusively assert that the
60
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

final process output, which is the MTDP reflected a lot of local knowledge even though they
accept ownership this support Ofei-Aboagye (2011) very few people are involved in the
participatory planning process.

5.2 Factors that Influence stakeholder Participation

It is documented in theory that various factors influence participation (Hassan et al 2011,
Rider and Pahl-Wostl 2005 and Rowe and Frewer 2005). This study therefore set out to
understand and map out the factors that influence participation in the study area. It can be
concluded that most of the factors that were measured very much influenced participation in
various ways, but mostly negatively and therefore affects the quality of participation. It is
important however to conclude on critical factors that have causal linkages and breading a
vicious cycle of distrust for the local government and its participatory planning process. The
main influencing factor in the view of respondents is inadequate funding of which they stated
represent about 70% of the challenges. But the commitment of top management or leadership
also came out strongly and it is a critical influencing factor. This support Ansell and Gash
(2007) argument that facilitative leadership is important factor in bringing people to the
decision-making table and develop trust. Top management or leadership of the local
government do not ‘’own the process’’. They do not attend meetings at the various levels of
the process and do not consider as a priority the allocation of adequate resources to support
the process. This leadership issue can be linked to the national level looking at the delays in
the release of policy and planning guidelines.
In mapping the influencing factors and their linkages, top management commitment is seen
as a core issue and linked to inadequate funding and its release that is perceived to affect all
other activities. Funding has been a major constraint to the participatory planning process.
The amount released is inadequate to allow the various activities and stakeholders groups and
individuals to be involved. Financial incentives which is another very influential factor for
stakeholder participation is dependent on the availability of funds. Payment of incentives is
delayed and attendance to meetings is affected. Invitation to stakeholders has to be limited to
35 to 40 people per Zonal council planning meeting, which in the view of respondents’
compromises the need for all groups of stakeholders to be represented. The inability or lack
of commitment of leadership to implement agreed strategies and programmes over the years
is increasing citizens’ distrust for the local government and its ability to facilitate
development. This findings support Ridder and Palh-Wostl (2005) argument that trust must
be developed for participation to be successful.
Also linked to the lack of commitment on the part of leadership is the inability to maintain an
effective interactive feedback system. Stakeholders do not have adequate information about
the planning process and its outcomes and outputs. Copies of the MTDPs are not available to
even heads of departments. This situation of inadequate feedback and constant
communication is further re-enforcing the existing distrust. Other very influential factor is
capacity or skills and knowledge of stakeholders of which the involvement of limited
stakeholders does not promote.
The factor that was found to be not at all influential in the participatory planning process was
cultural beliefs and values while the income/employment of stakeholders was perceived as
slightly influential. Cultural values and beliefs which was conceived as peoples shared norms,
practices and traditions was perceived as not being influential as far as participation in
development planning is concerned. Much as some cultural beliefs were mentioned, for
instance not going to farm on specific days, it was said it does not influence participation. It
61
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

is understandable, because the larger part of the municipality in urbanised and the cultural
issues mentioned pertains to the few peri-urban communities. Also the employment status of
respondents was largely perceived as slightly influential because people are able to obtain
permission from the work places. More importantly, for the departmental heads it is part of
their work schedule.

5.3 Stakeholder Mobilisation

Stakeholder mobilisation is seen in theory as the activities that help to prepare and generate
the interest of stakeholders to participate. The findings on these indicators points to the
conclusion that the Ga West Municipal Authority does not adequately mobilise its
stakeholders to participate effectively. Much as it was stated that the NDPC organised some
initial sensitisation for selected stakeholders, that is the MPCU members, not much was
organised for other stakeholders in the planning process. The local government does not have
a comprehensive stakeholder list that is representative of the diversity of stakeholders. This is
very important in a multi-stakeholder environment of an urban area. The basis for
involvement is any identifiable groups without much recourse to stakeholder influence and
expertise or power and interest. This, once again can be linked to lack of comment by
management.
Adequate information was perceived as very influential but stakeholders are not given much
information. It was stated that sections of the policy documents were given to departments
without the planning guidelines. At the Zonal council level, no documents are given and roles
are not clearly defined and communicated in advance. Sensitisation and information on the
planning process is undertaken during the planning meetings which takes three days.

5.4 Actions to integrate and facilitate Self-organised Initiatives

Self-organised initiatives, which in the study area are called Self-help Projects are conceived
theoretically to emanate from civic society groups and may or may not have government
support (Bonstra and Boelen 2011and Meerkek et al 2012). In this study, the focus was
placed on local government support for such initiatives or projects (Bakker et al 2012). From
the analysis and findings it can be concluded that the main action taken to facilitate or
integrate such projects is by giving direct financial assistance or taking over the project and
warding on contract. Other actions or support from the local government are technical or
expert advice, which is by providing the architectural drawings or in-kind support of
supplying building materials and electrification poles. The local government however does
not capture these initiatives in its MTDPs. The reason for not capturing such initiatives was
that the request comes as and when the initiatives are taken which may be outside the
planning period. But it was accepted that they could be captured during the annual review of
the MTDP.
The main action which is financial support has not been effective in promoting such
initiatives. The reasons have been that requests for support are delayed to the extent that
community members have resorted to seeking support from NGOs. Those who are not able to
get support from NGOs just abandon the project in situations where they are unable to
continue from their own resources. There was an account from one of the community
respondents that they requested for support for ICT equipments and since the year 2011ocal
government has not responded. He stated that the classroom block with a computer library

62
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

project was undertaken with the support of an NGO but Local government is to help provide
computers.

5.5 Effectiveness of Stakeholder Participation

The study looked at effective participation by adopting Pretty (1995) typology of
participation where participation is in a continuum and move from bad to good with the
highest being self-mobilisation. Effective participation from this perspective was therefore
described as the levels that allow and provides sufficient opportunities for stakeholders to
influence decisions or take initiatives.
On the stakeholder participation, it can be concluded that most people participate sometimes.
This situation does not allow the promotion of long term involvement where very
experienced people support new participants to impact and improve the quality of the process
and its output. Besides, it can be said that stakeholders are effectively participating in terms
of Pretty (1995) typology, which are functional participation and interactive participation.
This notwithstanding, the quality of the process and its output are seriously affected by
resources available in terms of time, funding and inputs and the under-representation of
stakeholders groups.
In Pretty’s participation typology, there are lower levels of participation where stakeholders
provide labour and are consulted for information that are pre-defined by external agents, in
this case the local government. The conclusion from this research is that, the Ga West
situation deviates from Pretty’s description. In the study area, stakeholders participate by
being consultation but the information and process gathering are not predefined. Besides,
labour is no more contributed by stakeholders because the projects are given on contract. The
contribution is in the form of the community providing land for the projects.
On the perceived influence on decisions, it can be stated that stakeholders have influence on
the selection of strategies and their location. But no influence at all when it comes to financial
allocation. Much as the Assembly members approved the budget estimates for
implementation, they do not consider it as an influence. To them, it is indirect influence and
do not have much power to change allocations or distribution of such funds.

5.6 Implications for Planning Policy - Ghana

As discussed earlier in chapter 1, the NDPC is developing a new policy of issuing combined
planning guidelines for the preparation of both district development plans and settlement
plans using participatory approach (Discussions with Forbes Davidson referred). It is
important to reflect on the implications of the findings on such a policy. The current
participatory approach has generated a lot of distrust for the local government. This is mainly
due to the lack of commitment on the part of leadership linked to inadequate funding for the
process and lack of or poor implementation among others.
It is therefore critical for the NDPC not to focus on only the issuing of the guidelines but
consider some of the critical factors that influence participation at the local and national
levels. This would ensure that the new policy of preparing MTDPs and settlement plans using
participatory approach does not become rhetoric but an effective tool for development.

63
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

5.7 Recommendations
Based on the research findings and conclusions the following recommendations are being
made to support policy change and for the Municipal Assembly to consider. These I believe
would help improve the effectiveness and quality of participation in the strategic planning
process and its output. The recommended entry point is for leadership to show commitment
and provide sufficient support to break the vicious cycle of distrust. The figure illustrates the
cycle which needs to be followed among other things to improve the participatory process in
the study area.

Figure 21: Recommended interventions to improve quality and effective participation

Perform or implement
agreed key strategies

Increase trust
Manage and credibility
stakeholder Improved Quality and of local
expectations government
Effective participation

Involve representative
stakeholder
groups/individuals

Leadership should intervene by

National showing commitment and Local
Government providing sufficient support for Government
the process

Source: By Author based research conclusions

The critical point of intervention in improving the participatory process is for leadership both
national and local government to show commitment and provide the needed support. The
needed support has its foundations in effective revenue mobilisation and its judicious use.
The support should include adequate funding, capacity building to promote long term
involvement and institutional development especially at the unit committee level. This is
because experiences and skills were perceived as very influential and the leadership should
be committed to invest in it.
The local government leadership should also involve representative stakeholder groups and
individuals after a comprehensive stakeholder analysis to rake in the needed expertise and
interest. It is also critical to manage expectation by effectively prioritising interventions and
communicating agreed strategies to stakeholders. Leadership should ensure that, they
implement agreed key strategies which are a major influencing factor to build trust and
credibility. This is expected to increase trust and credibility for the local government and then
improve stakeholders’ willingness to participate effectively to improve the quality of
participatory outputs. As leadership continues to manage this process the vicious cycle of
distrust would be broken and effective and quality participation would emerge.
64
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

REFERNCES
Local Government Act, 462, 1993. Accra, Ghana: .

National Development Planning (Systems) Act, 480, 1994. Accra, Ghana: .

Ahwoi, K., 2011. Overview of Local Government in Ghana: Prospects and Challenges. In:
M. Alam and R. Koranteng eds., 2011. Decentralization in Ghana. London:
Commonwealth Secretariate. pp. 38-48.

Albrechts, L., 2004. Strategic (Spatial) Planning Reeamined. Enviironment and Planning B:
Planning and Design 2004, 31 pp. 743-758.

Alsop, R., Bertelon, M. F. and Holland, J., 2006. Empoerment in Practice: From Analysis to
Implementation. Washington. DC: The World Bank.

Ansell, C. and Gash, A. 2007. Collaborative Governanace in Theory and Practice. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 18 pp. 543-571.

Bebbington, A., Lewis, D., Batterbury, S.,Olson, E. and Siddiqui, M. S. 2007. Of Text and
Practice: Empowerment and Organisational Cultures in World Bank funded Rural
Development programmes. Journal of Development Studies, 43 pp. 597-621.

Bishop, P. and Davis, G. 2002. Mapping Public Participation in Policy Choices. Australian
Journal of Public Administration, 61 (1), pp. 14-29.

Boachie-Danquah, N., 2011. Reducing Corruption at Local Government Level in Ghana. In:
M. Alam and R. Koranteng eds., 2011. Decentralization in Ghana. London:
Commonwealth Secretariate. pp. 111-125.

Boonstra, B. and Boelens, L. 2011. Self-organisation in urban development: towards a new

perspective on spatial planning. Urban Research and Practice, 4 (2), pp. 99-122.

Botchie, G., 2000. Rural District Planning in Ghana: A Case Study. Environmental Planning
Issues, (21), .

Bryson, J. M., 2004. What to Do When Stakeholders Matter. Public Management Review, 6
(1), pp. 21-53.

Campbell, S. and Fainstein, S. S., 2003. Readings in Planning theory. 2nd. USA: Blackwell.

Cleaver, F., 1999. Paradoxes of Participation: Questioning Participatory Approaches to

Development. Journal of International Development, 11 pp. 597-612.

Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. 2001. The Case for Participation as Tyrany. In: B. Cooke and U.
Kothari eds., 2001. Participation: The New Tyrany? Norfolk: Biddles Limited. pp. 1-15.

Cornwall, A., 2008. Unpacking 'Participation': models, meaning and practices. Oxford
University Press and City Development Journal, 43 (3), pp. 269-283.

65
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

DFID, 2003. A Hand fr those engaged in Development Activities. (Department for

International Development, UK ; Version 15.1), .

D'hondt, F., 2011. The Vision. The Vision. 2011. Visioning As Participatory Planning Tool:
Learning from Kosovo Practices. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. pp. 18-23.

Djik, M. P. v., 2006. Managing Cities in Developing Countries: The Theory and Practice or
Urban Management. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Eisenhardt, K. M., 1999. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of
Management Review, 14 (4), pp. 532-550.

Freeman, R. E., 1984. ''Strategic Management: A Skakeholder Approach''. Boston: Pitman.

Freeman, R. E., 2004. A Stakeholder Theory of Morden Corperation Ethical Theory and
Business. 7th Edition.

Fung, A., 2005. Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration

Review, 66 pp. 66-75.

Ga West Municipal Assembly (unpublished) 2010. Ghana Shared Growth and Development
Agenda - Medium Term Development Plan 2010-2013.

Ghana Statistical Service, 2012. 2010 Population and Housing Census: Summary Report of
Final result. Accra: Sakoa Press Limited.

Government of Ghana (unpublished) 2010. Decentralization Policy Framework. Ministry of

Local Government and Rural development (Theme: Accererating decentralization and
local governance for National Development.

Gyampo, R., 2012. The Youth and Development Planning in West Africa: The Case of
Ghana's Fourth Republic. African Journal of Social Sciences, 2 (1), pp. 130-146.

Healey, P.,., 2007. Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a relational planning
for our times. New York: Routledge.

Irvin, R. A. and Stansburg, J. 2004. Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the
Effort? Public Administration Review, 64 (1), pp. 55-65.

klijn, E., 2008. Complexity Theory and Public administration: What is New. Public
Administration Review, 10 (3), pp. 299-317.

Landry, C., 2007. Foundation of The Creative Cty. Foundation of The Creative Cty. 2007.
The Creative City: A Toolkit For Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan. pp. 105-131.

Majos, E. A., 2007. Against Alienation: Karol Wojtyla's Theory of Participation. KRITIKE, 1
(1), pp. 71-85.

Meerkert, I. v., Bonstra, b. and Edelembos, j. 2012. Self-organisation in urban Regeneration:

A Two-Case Comparative Research. European Planning Studies, pp. 1-23.
66
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

National Development Planning Commission (unpublished) 2011. Guidelines for the

preparation of District Medium Term Development Plans under the Ghana Shared
Growth and Development Agenda (GSGDA) 2010-2013. Planning giudelines ( Revised
Version).

NDPC, 2001. Guidelines for the Preparation of District Medium-Term Development Plans
Under the Ghana Poverty Reduction Startegy (GPRS 1) 2002-2004.

Ofei-Aboagye, E. O., 2011. Local Government and Pro-poor Development: Outline of

Presentation and Issues. In: M. Alam and R. Koranteng eds., 2011. Deentralization in
Ghana. 2011: Commonwealth Scretariate. pp. 126-144.

Owusu, G., 2004. Small towns and Decentralized Development in Ghana: Theory and
Practice. Africa Spectrum, 39 (2), pp. 165-195.

Owusu, G. and Afutu-Kotey, R. L. 2010. Poor Urban Communities and Municipal Interface
in Ghana: A case of Accra and Sekondi-Tokoradi Metroplis. African Studies Quarterly,
12 (1), pp. 1-16.

Peelle, E., Schweiter, M., Munro, J., Carnes, S., et al., 1996. Factors Favorable to Public
Participation Process. (A report prepared by the Oak Ridge Naional Laboratory: Oak
Ridge, Tennessee 37831 for the US Department of Energy.; Available at:
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/228492-EoYgiS/webviewable/228492.pdf
[Accessed 8/5/2013].

Pennink, C., Dauskardt, R. and Davidson, F., 2001. Urban Policies and Strategies in a Global
Context: Key Issues, Elements and Lossens. .

Pretty, J. N., 1995. Participatory Learning from Sustainble Agriculture. World Development,
23 (1247), pp. 1263.

Rider, D. and Pahl-Wostl, C. 2005. Participatory Integrated Assessment in Local Level

Planning. Regional Environmental Change, 5 pp. 188-196.

Rowe, R. and Frewer, L. J. 2005. A Typolofy of Public Engagement Mechanisms.

ScienceTechnology and Human Values, 30 (2), pp. 251-290.

Tritter, J. Q. and McCallum, A. 2006. The snacks and laders of user involvement: Moving
beyond Arnstein. Health Policy, 76 pp. 156-168.

Van den Broeck, J., 2004. StraStructure Planning. Urban Trialogues: Visions, Projects, Co-
Production. United Nations HumanSettlem.Ents Programme. Nairobi, Kenya, UN-
Habitat, pp. 169-184.

World Bank, 1996. The Worl Bank Participation Sourcebook. Washington DC, USA: The
World Bank.

Yin, R. K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th. USA: SAGE.

67
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Appendices
Appendix 1: Map of the Study Area, Ga West Municipality

Sources: Ga West Municipal Assembly 2010

68
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Appendix 2: Decentralized planning System - Ghana

President

National Level

Min. of National Development

Finance Planning Commission

Sectoral,
Ministries, Regional
Agencies Coordinating Council
District Assembly (RPCU)
(DPCU)
Regional, sectoral
Agency

Area/Town Regional Level

Councils

District Level Unit

Committee

Source: Adapted from: (Owusu, 2004)

Key:
Shaded portion – focus of the study
Development Plans
Plan inputs/projects
Policy framework, data, information

69
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Appendix 3: Plan preparatory process – Summary of activities and

stakeholder participation

1
Performance
Review
8 2
Adoption of Compile
MDTP by District
General Profile/current
Assembly situation

3
7 Harmonise
Draft Plan STAKEHOLDER
District dev’t
prepared. PARTICIPATION issues with
Organise National
Final Public Local priorities
hearing Government and
Community

6 4
Preparation Dev’t of
of strategies,
Communica goals,
tion Plan objectives,
programmes
and projects
5
Implementation
plan, M&E
arrangements

Source: By Author, based on 2010-2013 Planning Guidelines

70
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Apendix 4: Research Design and Methodology with time lines

Table : Research Design and Methodology with time schedule
Task TIME FRAME (IN WEEKS)
No. Task Name Duratio
May June July August
n (Days)
1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Task Before Field Work
1 Identify and mobilise 4
resources (stationery,
funds, equipments)
2 Design research 10
instruments (survey
questionnaires, semi-
structure interview and
interview guide)
3 Pre-test instruments with 2
colleagues
4 Development respondents 7
interview schedule
5 Develop case study 5
Protocol
Task During Field Work
6 Familiarisation and 2
inception visit
7 Review of respondents 2
interview schedule with
MPO
8 Meeting with research 1
assistants
9 Pretesting/review of 2
questionnaires
10 Interviewer administration 5
of questionnaires
11 Conduct face-to-face 5
Semi-structured
interviews and content
analysis of documents
12 Ongoing preliminary data 8
Analysis
12 Conduct focus group 4
71
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

discussions
13 Evaluation/mop up 5
exercise/filling in gaps
Task After Field Work
14 Detailed data analysis
quantitative data (SPSS-
descriptive/inferential
statistics
15 Detailed analysis
qualitative data (Atlas.ti –
descriptive , narratives)
16 Compilation of chapter 4
17 Compilation of chapter 5
Source: Developed by author, field work 2013.

Appendix 5: selection of Respondents - Sample

No Respondents Sample Sampling Data Type and Data
Size Technique collection collection
method Instrument
1 Assembly Members 8 Purposive Primary Semi-
In-depth structured
interviews interview

11 Random Primary
Survey Questionnaire
2 Unit Committees 8 Purposive Primary
Focus group Interview
discussion guide
8 Random Primary
Survey Questionnaire
Heads of departments 12 Purposive Primary Semi-
In-depth structured
interviews interview

22 Random Primary
Survey Questionnaire
13 Purposive Primary
Focus group Interview
discussion guide

72
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

19 Purposive Observation Checklist

Purposive Secondary Document

Content analysis review

Traditional Authority 2 Purposive Primary Semi-

In-depth structured
Interview interview

Source: Authors Field work

Appendix 6: Phases of Data collection and linkages with respondents

Research Instruments Key Informants

Phase 1
 Council Members
Administration of (Assembly members, unit
Questionnaire committees etc)
(Survey)  Heads of Departments

(41)

Phase 2
 Assembly members/
Chairmen of sub-committees
Semi-structured  Municipal Planning officers
interview instrument /Budget/finance Officers
(In-depth interview)  Heads of departments
 Traditional Authority
(22)

Phase 3

Interview Planning Coordinating Unit

Guide/check list Members/Review Meeting
(Focus group Unit committees
discussion/Observation) (2 groups)

Source: Author’s Fieldwork 2013

73
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Appendix 7: Sample of Questionnaires

INSTITUTE FOR HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, ERASMUS
UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM. THE NETHERLANDS.
‘’FACTORS INFLUENCING STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN THE STRATEGIC
PLANNING PROCESS: THE CASE OF GA WEST MUNICIPALITY.’’
(This questionnaire is purposely for academic research. As such all information collected
would remain confidential)
Survey Questionnaire
Section A. General Information
1. Name of Electoral Area/Community/Department……………………………………
2. Age of Respondent in Years
1. 18-24
2. 25-34
3. 35-54
4. 55 and above

3. Gender 1. Female 2. Male

4. Educational Background
1. No formal Education
2. Middle School Leaving Certificate
3. Junior Secondary School
4. Secondary/Vocational/Technical
5. Tertiary
6. Others
5. How long have you worked or represented your community/area in this Municipal
Assembly? (in years)
1. 1-4
2. 5-8
3. 9 and above
Section B. Factors that Influence participation
6. Have you participated in the strategic planning process before? 1. Yes 2.
No
If No, please go to question 59 and 60.
7. If yes, how were you invited to participate in the planning process?

1 2 3 4 5

Formal letter Verbal Invitation Media (Radio) Zonal Council Others

Through Meeting/notice
Assembly board
member

74
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

8. Did you participate in the GPRS 1 (2001-2005) planning process? 1. Yes 2. No

9. Did you participate in GPRS 2 (2006-2009) planning process? 1. Yes 2. No
10. Did you participate in GSGDA 1 (2010-2013) planning process? 1. Yes 2. No
11. Were you involved in the performance review of the previous plan? 1. Yes 2. No
12. Were you involved in the compilation of profile and situation analysis? 1. Yes 2. No
13. Were you involved in the plan harmonisation process? 1. Yes 2. No
14. Were you involved in the selection of key strategies and projects? 1. Yes 2. No
15. Were you involved in the preparation of implementation plan? 1. Yes 2. No
16. Were you involved in the preparation of communication strategy? 1. Yes 2. No
17. Were you involved in public hearing of the draft plan? 1. Yes 2. No
18. Were you involved in the adoption of the Plan by the general Assembly? 1. Yes 2. No

Organisational Factors
How would you agree with the following statements?
Order Statement 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
19 Assembly has adequate funds to facilitate
participation
20 Assembly has enough time to undertake
participatory activities
21 Assembly releases Funds on time
22 Assembly receives Policy and planning
guidelines on time
23 Assembly’s Top management are present
at planning meetings/commitment
24 Assembly has the flexibility to approach
participatory activities

With reference to your responses to questions 20-25, how in your opinion do these influence
your participation?
Order Statement 1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely
influential Influential Influential Influential
Influential

25 Funds to facilitate participation

26 Period given for participatory activities
27 Time Funds are released
28 Policy and planning guidelines released
29 Top management presence at planning
meetings/commitment

75
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

30 Flexibility and freedom to approach

participatory activities (means of
engagements)

Socio-economic factors
How would you rate the influence of the following on your ability to participate?
Order Statement 1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely
influential Influential Influential Influential
Influential

31 Regular source of income/ employment

32 Previous experience in participation
33 Cultural values and beliefs
34 Skills, knowledge and competence

Process Factors
How would you describe your level of satisfaction with the following process issues?

Order Issue 1 2 3 4 5
Very Dissatisfied Unsure satisfied Very
Dissatisfied satisfied

35 Transparency, openness and reliability of the

planning process
36 Process interaction and feedback system
37 Assembly’s acceptance and consideration of
participants views and inputs
38 Effectiveness of forms of engagements ( public
hearing, community meetings, workshops)
39 T&T allowances paid and other incentives
40 Time and frequency of meetings
41 Convenience and accessibility of venue of
meetings

With reference to your responses to questions 35-41, how in your opinion do these influence
your participation?
Order Issue 1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely
influential Influential Influential Influential
Influential

76
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

42 Transparency, openness and reliability of

the process
43 Interaction and feedback system
44 Assembly’s acceptance and consideration
of participants views and inputs
45 Effectiveness of forms of engagements –
public hearing, community for a,
workshops
46 T&T allowances paid
47 Time and frequency of meetings
48 Convenience and accessibility of venue of
meetings

Section C. Mobilisation of Stakeholders

How would you agree with the following statements?
Order Statement 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
49 Assembly has a stakeholder list with clear
representation
50 Information about the planning process and
activities are communicated to stakeholders
early
51 Assembly uses existing groups and local
mobilisation channels to reach stakeholders
52 Clear roles of stakeholders are developed and
communicated in advance
53 Schedule and frequency of meetings are
developed and communicated

With reference to your responses to questions 49-53, how in your opinion do these influence
your participation?
Order Statement 1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely
influential Influential Influential Influential
Influential

54 Assembly’s invite participants after a

detailed stakeholder identification and
analysis (clear representation list)
55 Information about the planning process
and activities are communicated to

77
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

stakeholders early
56 Assembly uses existing groups and local
mobilisation channels to reach
stakeholders
57 Clear roles of stakeholders are developed
and communicated in advance
58 Schedule and frequency of meetings are
developed and communicated

59. Why don’t you participate in the planning process? (Please tick the one applicable)
1. I am not invited
2. My financial position would not allow.
3. I do not trust the Assembly
4. I do not have enough time
5. The meeting place is not convenient and accessible
6. I do not have the skills and competence
7. I am informed too late
8. Others
60. When given the opportunity to participate, would you consider it?
1. Would not consider 2. Might consider 3. Definitely consider

Facilitation and integration of Self-help projects

61. What community initiated projects do you know or have in your community?
1. Education projects 2. Health projects 3. Market projects
4. Agricultural projects 5. Electrification projects
6. Water and sanitation projects 7. Others
62. Does the Assembly support such projects? 1. Yes 2. No
63. If yes, which of the following actions does the Assembly take to facilitate and integrate
these initiatives?
1. Technical/expert advice 2. Initiatives are incorporated in the Developments
plan
3. Financial support/ budget line for these initiatives 4. Others
64. How in your view does this action by the Assembly influence effective participation?
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Slightly Somewhat Very Influential Extremely
Influential Influential Influential Influential

78
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Section D. Effective stakeholder Participation

65. How regular do you participate in planning meetings?
1. Rarely 2. Sometimes 3. Often 4. Always

Indicate your agreement or otherwise of the following statement on your level of

participation
Order Statement 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
66 I only receive information on what is already
planned
67 Consulted on problem definition, data
gathering and others
68 I was a member of a planning committee
69 I contribute in the form of skills and knowledge
(technical expertise)
70 Interact and jointly take decisions on strategies
71 Involved in joint analysis and development of
action plans

Influence on decisions
How do you perceive your influence on decisions in line with the following statements?
Order Statement 1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Slightly Somewhat Very Extremely
influential Influential Influential Influential
Influential

72 Selection of key strategies for the MTDP

73 Allocation of financial resources
74 Location of projects and programmes

How do you personally agree on the following statements?

Order statement 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
75 I support the final outcome of the planning
process
76 The process outcome contains a lot of local

79
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

knowledge
77 The results were dictated by the Assembly

Appendix 8: Sample of Semi-structured Interview instrument

INSTITUTE FOR HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, ERASMUS
UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM. THE NETHERLANDS.
‘’FACTORS INFLUENCING STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS:
THE CASE OF GA WEST MUNICIPALITY.’’

Semi-structured Interview – (key Assembly Staff)

1. Age of respondent:…………………………….
2. Gender: Male Female
3. Educational Level: No Formal Education MSLC JHS
SHS/Vocational/technical University Others
A. Factors Influencing Participation
4. How long have you been participating in the planning process?........................
5. How are stakeholders’ invitations to participate in the planning process? Probes
What do you/stakeholders consider before deciding to participate? Please explain your
response to question
6. How would you describe the assembly’s participatory process in terms of the
following?
-Selection of stakeholders
-top management commitment
- Sensitization and giving enough information to participants
-using local mobilisation channels and others
7. What do you consider adequate amount of time for the process?
8. How much time is actually given for the process? To what extent does this affect
participation
9. How much was budgeted for the process?
10. How much was actually released? How adequate was this?
11. How early do you expect to receive the guidelines and policy documents before the
process?
4 months
6 months
8months
Others
12. How many months to the commencement of the process did you receive the
documents? To what extent does this affect participation?
13. Do you have the flexibility to approach the participatory process? Yes
No
14. Among the factors you consider (question 9) before participating, mention five (5)
most important that influence you. Explain your choices.
80
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

15. Can you list some of the strategies the assembly use to engage stakeholders?
16. How would you describe the effectiveness of these strategies?

B. Facilitation and integration of community level initiatives

17. Are there community initiated projects? Yes No

18. If yes, how many projects since 2010?..............................
19. Does the Assembly collaborate or facilitate these initiate? Yes No
20. If Yes, in what ways does the Local Government support or facilitate these projects?
21. How influential would you say these actions/support by the Assembly on community
based organisations effective participation in development? explain
22. How much was budgeted for these initiatives in the under listed years?
2010………………………………..
2011………………………………..
2012………………………………..
2013………………………………..
23. What percentage of the total budget do these allocations represent?
2010………………………………..
2011………………………………..
2012………………………………..
2013………………………………..

24. How easy is it to receive support under these budget provisions?

25. How influential would you say these actions/support by the Assembly on community
based organisations

Effective Stakeholder participation

26. Do you believe that stakeholders participate regularly in planning meetings? Explain
27. How many planning teams/committees were established during the last planning
period?
28. How many community stakeholders were on these planning teams?
29. How would you describe their contribution in terms of inputs and influence?
30. How, in specific terms do you involve stakeholders? What do they really do?
31. Can you explain which stakeholders are involved in the specific way and why?
32. How are the views and inputs of stakeholders taken into account?
33. How would you describe stakeholder influence on selection of key strategies?
34. How do stakeholders influence the allocation of financial resources for these
strategies?
35. Would you say stakeholder views and inputs influence the location of projects?
How?
36. How decisions made available to stakeholders after meetings?
37. How would you rate the overall influence of stakeholders on the strategic decision
making process?
38. Explain your key reasons for these rating
39. Any other issues on participation you want me to understand?

Thank You

81
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

INSTITUTE FOR HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, ERASMUS

UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM. THE NETHERLANDS.
‘’FACTORS INFLUENCING STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS:
THE CASE OF GA WEST MUNICIPALITY.’’

Semi-structured Interview – (Other respondents)

1. Age of respondent:…………………………….
2. Employment Status: Employed Unemployed Retired
3. Gender: Male Female
4. Educational Level: No Formal Education MSLC JHS
SHS/Vocational/technical University Others
C. Factors Influencing Participation
5. How long have you been participating in the planning process?........................
6. How did you receive information to participate in the 2010-2013 planning process?
-Written invitation
-From colleagues
-Others
7. When did you became involved, was the process already on going?
8. Which activities were you involved? Who decides?
9. What do you consider before you decide to participate?
10. Among the factors you consider (question 9) before participating, mention five (5)
most important that influence you. Explain your choices.
11. Does the local government have adequate funds and how does it influence
participation?
12. How would you describe the assembly’s participatory process in terms of its openness
and level grounds for participation, Feedback mechanism, top management
commitment and others
13. Does the Municipal Assembly pay incentives and how influential is this to
participation.
14. What do you consider adequate amount of time for the process?
15. How much time is actually given for the process? To what extent does this influence
participation
16. How early do you expect to receive the guidelines and policy documents before the
process? State in months.
17. Do you have the flexibility to approach the participatory process? Yes
No
Please explain your response to question 17
18. Can you list some of the strategies/techniques the assembly use to engage
stakeholders?
19. How would you describe the effectiveness of these strategies?
20. How would you describe the Assembly’s stakeholder mobilisation strategy and its
influence on participation (Selection of stakeholders, Sensitization and giving enough
information to participants among others)

D. Facilitation and integration of community level initiatives

82
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

21. Are there community initiated projects? Yes No

22. If yes, which sectors?
23. Does the Assembly collaborate/ facilitate/support these initiate? Yes No
24. If yes, how is this done? Please explain
25. How would you describe the influence of these actions on effective participation in
development? explain

Effective Stakeholder participation

26. Do you participate regularly in planning meetings? Yes No

27. If yes, how regular?
28. Did the Assembly establish planning teams for the last planning period? If yes,
29. How many planning teams/committees were established?
30. Were you on any of these teams/or you know of a community stakeholders who was
on these planning teams?
31. How would you describe your/their contribution in terms of influence/inputs?
32. How, in specific terms do you participate?
33. How are your views and inputs taken into account?
34. How would you describe your influence on selection of key strategies?
35. How would you describe your influence on the allocation of financial resources for
these strategies?
36. Would you say your views/inputs influence the location of projects? And how?
Any other issues on participation that I need to know.

Appendix 9: Interview Guide

INSTITUTE FOR HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, ERASMUS
UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM. THE NETHERLANDS.
FACTORS INFLUENCING STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS:
THE CASE OF GA WEST MUNICIPALITY.
Focus group Interview Guide – Unit Committee members
Factors Influencing Participation
1. Which planning periods were you involved?
2. How were you invited to participate?
3. What motivates or enable you to participate in the planning process? (Probe for other
details)
4. What cultural beliefs and values are in the various communities? How do they
influence effective participation?
5. How would you describe the influence of your occupation/employment/sources of
income on participation?
6. How does previous experience influence effective participation? Explain.
7. How would you describe the openness/transparency of the planning process? Explain
8. Do you think you are able to express your views and inputs? I yes what enable it, if
no, what prevent it? Explain
9. Would you say your inputs/views are taken into account? How? Who has the final
say?

83
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

10. How would you describe the methods the Assembly use to engage stakeholders?
Community meetings and others. How does it influence your participation?
11. Are you given some incentives after participation? What are these? How would you
describe the influence of these incentives on your participation?
12. How would you describe the involvement of top management in the participatory
initiatives?
13. What if the feedback system after planning meetings?
14. How would you describe the venues and time for planning meetings? How does it
influence your participation?

Stakeholder mobilisation
15. How are stakeholders invited to participate? Is there a list of people? (Probe)
16. Would you say you were given enough information/time to enable you participate?
Explain.
17. Would you say you knew what was expected/role of you in the process? Explain.
18. Was these communicated to you earlier on? And how?
19. How does the Assembly schedule planning meetings? How would you describe these
schedules of meetings and how does it affect your participation?
20. How would you describe the effectiveness of mobilisation of stakeholders by the
Assembly?

Facilitation and integration of self-organised initiatives

21. How would you describe communities’ ability to initiate projects and what are the
areas of interventions?
22. How involved are you in these initiatives?
23. How do these self-help projects start and how are they implemented?
24. Do you collaborate with the Assembly? How is it done? If not why not?
25. How are these activities supported by the municipal Assembly?
26. Do you think these support to self-help projects enhance effective participation in the
Planning processes? If yes explain.
27. If no, how do you think it can be improved?
Effective stakeholder participation

28. How regular are you at planning meetings?

29. How do you specifically participate in the planning process? (probe - Information,
consultation, in-kind contribution, joint decisions etc)
30. Are you aware of planning teams being formed? How are they formed? Have you
ever served on any of the planning teams? Explain.
31. Would you say you are effectively participating and why?

Perceived influence on Decisions

32. How would you describe your influence on the participatory process? Project
selection, allocation of financial resources, and selection of strategies. How?
33. Do you have copies of the plan? How did they get it? If no why?
34. How do you perceive the MTDP 2010-2013? As your own? Or the Assemblies? And
why?

THANK YOU ALL.

84
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Appendix 10: Pictures of interviews and focus group discussions

Picture 1: Interview with an Assembly Woman

Picture 2: Interview with Finance & Administration sub-committee chairman

85
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Picture 3: Interview with the head of planning unit

Picture 4: interview with Traditional Leader (Chief)

86
Factors Influencing Stakeholder Participation in the Strategic Planning Process: The Case of Ga
West Municipality

Picture 5: Focus group discussions with MPCU members.

Interview with the former Development planning Sub-committee chairman

87