Finding Time for Time in Participatory Development Projects Elise Collins Development Officer and Researcher, 2011 Our Children Foundation, West Bengal, India elise@slowsociety.org
INTRODUCTION
Advocates of mainstream participatory development uphold its dedication to change that is truly “for the people, by the people and with the people” (Kak 2007:2). Yet, the persistent gap between a participatory rhetoric and a less than participatory development reality has been the subject of increased scrutiny among stakeholders (Cooke & Kothari 2001:14). In both schools of thought, the role that time perceptions, rhythms and pressures, or time climates, play in influencing development outcomes has been largely excluded from academic inquiry.
Time so intimately permeates the human experience that its cultural specificities are easily disregarded as universal truths (Adam 2004:3). However, inadequate attention to time climates jeopardises participatory development‟s potential to realise a process of local-led change as marked by its guiding principles, such as accountability, empowerment and local knowledge. A shared sense of time scarcity sustains pressures to meet quantitative targets, as reflected in international agreements. Accountability strengthens impending pressures on project implementers that encourages haste at the expense of improved quality of life for end users. Tight project time-frames propel shortcuts by project staff and limit the ability of practitioners to learn from setbacks through critical reflection and analysis. Neither is adequate time allocated to account for time restraints within the lives of participants or to realise that success, as dictated by time-frames, ignores long-term, complex power negotiations within the local community.
Pre-eminently, stakeholders in participatory development must recognise that the current Western-based time climate of development is not universal, superior or unequivocally effective. By prioritising time for learning through critical reflection, increased qualitative success measures and pre and post anthropological community research, „successful development‟ can more accurately reflect sustainable, local change for, by and with the people that it most intimately affects.
Finding Time for Time in Participatory Development Projects 1
An Introduction to Western Time In order to address a gap in literature concerning temporal dimensions of development, the rise and nature of Western time perceptions is outlined. While development literature has reflected an increased awareness of the impact that temporal perceptions and pressures bear on effective participatory development outcomes in recent years (Britton 1998:6; Mosse 2004:214; Verkoren 2008:228), the subject remains largely unexplored. To date, it appears that wholly dedicated reviews of the relationship between time perceptions and development outcomes have yet to be published. Literature that does consider the implications of temporal dimensions in development largely fall within circles of development anthropology that have failed to extend beyond academic circles and into public discourse and practise (Cardoso 2007:115). Concerning the link between time consciousness and human action, Adam (1995:42) argues that a multitude of time perceptions exist in the consciousness, narrative and physiology and manifest contextually through refractions of culture, history, language, place and space. However, these temporalities have been displaced with the overpowering domination of clock-time. In support of Nowotlyâ€&#x;s (1994:87) observation that new knowledges arise under changed organisational structures, the mainstreaming of clock-time spurred a growth in scientific knowledge that accompanied the industrial revolution. Today, a clock-based, future-oriented time climate dominates Western tradition. Time is perceived as linear and finite and therefore a precious resource (Rifkin 1985:60). To control its scarce supply, the West has emphasised time precision and target-based motivations in comparison to many African and Asian cultures, which tend to value the process of completion over the time taken (Verkoren 2008:228). In order to examine the interplay between temporal perceptions, development pressures and actions, and successful outcomes, the purpose of participatory development is elaborated upon.
Background to Participatory Development International development, by definition, implies a change to the status quo (Young et al. 2009:222). As with any change, issues of power are integral to development motives, actions and outcomes (Dettmer 2003:123). Prior to the 1970s, international development was dominated by donor-dictated, top-down aid programmes. Yet, widespread criticism of this approachâ€&#x;s shortcomings spurred a new paradigm of participatory development by the 1990s (Cooke & Kothari 2001: 170). In policy, participatory development aims to replace top-down execution with grassroots planning, paternalistic donors with facilitators and outsider expertise with local knowledge. The shift towards participatory development also coincides with an expanded view of development beyond economic growth to consider peopleâ€&#x;s basic human needs (Edelman & Haugerud 2005:49), as well as broader implications of development for social, political, and environmental dynamics (Barbier 2009:101). Popular buzzwords, such as accountability, empowerment and local knowledge reflect idealistic notions of success based on equal power relations between donors and recipients for local-led change (Edelman & Haugerud 2005:49). Thus, according to the latest shift to participatory
development, „successful‟ development is a process of local-led change through external facilitation that considers a web of social, political and environmental factors towards sustainable outcomes. A deeper exploration into participatory processes reveals a persistent culture of haste, which risks widening the gap between an egalitarian, participatory rhetoric and a donor-led reality.
Time Scarcity in International Development Agreements Firstly, a widespread trend to benchmark success against the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is used to demonstrate how the West‟s concept of time scarcity dominates international participatory development agreements. The MDGs comprise of eight quantitative, time-bound goals that attempt to measure progress towards qualitative results, in particular „poverty reduction‟ and „well being‟ (Fukuda-Parr 2008:2-3). All countries and leading development institutions have agreed to work towards the achievement of the MDGs by 2015 and benchmark against them in their policies (United Nations (UN) 2010). To the Western reader‟s eye, public participation towards the MDGs appears logical: poverty is addressed through participation to achieve development targets. It also appears efficient: the MDGs can be a powerful tool to motivate and coordinate stakeholders, monitor progress across time and hold stakeholders accountable to an ultimate deadline (Fukuda-Parr 2008:3). Furthermore, as United Nations‟ Secretary General Ban Ki-moon proclaims, a human tendency to ignore suffering from a lack of basic needs must give way to concerted efforts towards the global relief of suffering (UN 2008). Even so, success, as defined by the MDGs, rests upon an ultimate deadline while the nature of participation that occurs to achieve success within the time-frame remains ambiguous and underemphasised. In this way, the MDGs correspond with a future-oriented Western tradition that perceives time as a precious resource (Rifkin 1985:60), rather than taking a process driven emphasis as in many African and Asian cultures (Verkoren 2008:228). When the West‟s targetdriven time climate is infuses development practice, time pressures to reach quantitative targets risk mustering a counter-productive culture of haste.
Accountability Exacerbates a Culture of Haste While development deadlines appear logical in theory, accountability heightens donor pressures to prove results by time limits at the expense of quality measurements of success. Unfortunately, a heightened emphasis on international accountability may fuel time pressures at the expense of quality outcomes, propelling a culture of haste at the expense of life enhancing change. In comparison to former
top-down
approaches,
participatory
development
heavily
emphasises
government
accountability to donor agencies and the international public in order to decrease the misuse of aid
Finding Time for Time in Participatory Development Projects 1
funds for government self-interests (Easterly 2009:26; Winters 2010:226). Yet, an evaluation report concerning a participatory humanitarian and reconstruction aid programme in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2005 indicates that the effects of heightened accountability to deadlines risks undermining the quality of outcomes for end users (Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Denmark 2005:1). Concluding remarks regarding primary educational reforms epitomise how qualitative outcomes are jeopardised from pressures to be held accountable to benchmarks. Impressive enrolment figures that met quantitative targets failed to address meagre improvements in the education offered as well as the facilities provided (MFA Denmark 2005:154). The report reasons that the projectâ€&#x;s failure results from the haste within which a large number of interventions were implemented due to the widespread political priority attached to the Afghanistan conflict (MFA Denmark 2005:15,53). Actually, Byrne (1996:38) notes that a sense of urgency is shared among donors as they operationalise quantitative development milestones, despite whether end user circumstances are acute or stable. Unsurprisingly then, the signing of the MDGs was likewise performed in an atmosphere of mutual urgency (UNHABITAT 2005:5 ), thus sowing the seed for time pressures to undermine quality in order to remain accountable to impending project targets. While accountability may improve the likelihood of targetbased measurements of success, it also increases the urgency of the time climate and a consequent race to achieve development deadlines risks jeopardising quality outcomes for end users.
Restrictive Time-frames Create Shortcuts A closer inspection of shortcomings on the ground reveals that restrictive time-frames perpetuate a culture of haste, blinding fieldworkers to setbacks and spurring assessment shortcuts. Feedback from a study of four development organisations in Bangladesh reveals that fieldworker are often relocated to new project communities as frequently as every six months. Considering that the average amount of time taken to build adequate trust with clients to facilitate widespread participation was approximately six months, project time-frames constrain the ability of staff to successfully facilitate a participatory process (Ahmad 2002:186). Time shortages also cause staff to learn about rural conditions in vehicles, starting and ending in urban centres that are conveniently located near an airport, a reality that Chambers (2008:31) calls rural development tourism. Throughout the 1990s, time convenience meant that visitors of Indiaâ€&#x;s Maheshwaram watershed program needed only to travel one hour outside of Hyderabad International Airport to complete a routinised, two-hour roadside inspection among the most driver-friendly, flat roads in Andhra Pradesh. In reality, gully plugs were being bypassed by water flows, devastating the hidden sloping lands with erosion. The ability to respond to the erosion relied upon the time of donor representatives to explore beyond the environments that were viewable from roadways and time pressures to prove accountability through reporting meant that the unsustainable realities failed to contribute to reporting outcomes (Chambers 2008:42). In an environment of impending deadlines, it is easy to comprehend how time-poor staff risk
Finding Time for Time in Participatory Development Projects 2
absorbing initial impressions of a community‟s wellbeing while neglecting the deeper, complex local realities.
Time Poverty Jeopardises Learning Even when shortcomings are identified, a lack of time dedicated to the learning process among donors impedes upon the ability of participatory development stakeholders to improve in future practise. Learning requires a consideration for the need to change and change may require a reconsideration of unquestioned norms (Britton 1998:21). Yet, no incentive is provided for time-poor non-government organisation (NGO) staff who already under pressure to reconsider their approach to development when doing so may reveal a project that requires higher amounts of time and money than donors allocate. In recent years, a shift in donor strategies has increased the designation of private transnational groups, notably non-government organisations, to implement participatory programmes. Cooley & Ron (2002:9) view the resulting competition for funding between NGOs favourably for its ability to boost efficiency, cut waste and curb production in development output. In reality, heightened competition adds further pressure to constantly prove accountability. As a result, NGO staff find themselves spending large amounts of time securing funds, justifying overheads and conducting project evaluations to account for funding at the expense of reflection, critical analysis and knowledge-sharing activities (Goodhand 2006:144). Self-evaluations are widely promoted as a tool to initiate learning and ensure locally relevant outcomes (Mackay 2007:105). Yet, in facing an impending shortage of time to learn, self-evaluations risk triggering powerful defensive attitudes among staff in order to avoid the scrutinisation of questionable, yet comfortable realities (Britton 1998:21). In an ironic twist, avoidant attitudes among time-poor staff risks nullifying the relevance of self-evaluations and other learning mechanisms. Little wonder that Verkoren‟s (2008:110) interview of Southern NGO staff in India rated a lack of time above money as the largest obstacle to their ability to successfully learn from experiences on the ground. Evidently, when „time is money‟, pressures to prove accountability undermines the ability of time-poor staff to learn from failing projects in future practice.
Assuming Time for Participation Perhaps most blatantly ignored is the possibility that time restrictions among local clients will inhibit the ability of certain individuals to participate in the development process. Participatory development implies that beneficiaries can and will find time to participate effectively in the development process. Participatory needs assessments, notably Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), are standard fieldwork methods applied to ensure the wants and needs of prospect beneficiaries (Jacka 2010:104). Bailur (2007) attests that an emphasis on volunteers and
Finding Time for Time in Participatory Development Projects 3
meetings in needs assessment activities is not only time consuming but conjures romantic notions of communal altruism. Appadurai‟s (1990:210) study in rural agricultural communities of India supports Bailur‟s (2007) opinion by revealing that insensitivities to work and household duties in agency programmes undermine effective participation. Appadurai‟s (1990:210) findings lead him to conclude that time is as valuable to the poor as the land itself. Likewise, an evaluation of participatory project outcomes among four non-government organisations (NGOs) in Bangladesh found that time constraints discouraged clients, most usually women, from becoming group members or attending meetings regularly. While men usually preferred to meet in the evening after work women‟s commitments to family responsibilities and agricultural demands varied throughout the day, making full participation unrealistic. Moreover, during the crop processing season, work commitments left women with little or no time to attend meetings (Ahmad 2002:187). Similar observations lead Mosse (2004:214) to suggest that it is more useful to appreciate the impact of development projects on the poor and on women if time is considered the most critical resource, rather than income or production. In the end, unsuccessful participation emerges when varied time restrictions among clients themselves are not adequately considered in development programmes.
Success Excludes Ongoing Power Negotiations Further still, top-down definitions of success, as measures by development time-frames, fail to capture continuous, rhythmic power reformations among participants. According to Batliwa (2007:557), empowerment is the most widely mainstreamed catchphrase in the modern development lexicon. Empowerment implies a need to correct power imbalances, whereby a distinct set of activities under participation, enable end users to overcome disempowering forces until empowerment is achieved (Batliwa 2007:557; Masaki 2004:141). Thus, the power to create and initiate empowerment rests on donor assumptions of power transformations which are charted against time‟s linear arrow. Yet, Foucault (1977:227) proposes an alternative view of power transformations as a perpetual, nonlinear process. In maintaining the status quo, disciplinary power regulates social norms through the surveillance of social action. Simultaneously, disciplinary power is a point of reference from which social standards are renegotiated through a dynamic power process. In this sense, polarising tyranny and transformation on a development time-frame overlooks how both circumstances coexist in the lives of allegedly disempowered citizens. A clash between social power rhythms and linear assumptions of empowerment underpinned the perceived failure of women‟s empowerment for an Indo-British Rainfed Farming Project in Bhil, India. The fixed project duration fell short of capturing complex power fluctuations that characterised women‟s participation within and beyond project discourse (Mosse 2004:87). Mosse (2004:87) alludes to underlying issues of self esteem, restricted mobility and a lack of education, and the social rhythms through which these issues were renegotiated were unpredictable. While the empowerment of women was deemed a failure, the failure
Finding Time for Time in Participatory Development Projects 4
itself was constructed by time-frames rather than any enduring and evolving transformations that may have occurred within and beyond the barriers of project time-frames. In the end, power imbalances result from time-frames reflect the donor‟s power to determine success at the expense of recognising long-term complexities of power renegotiations among end users.
The Westernisation of Time Consciousness Participatory development risks masking the influence of Western time perceptions on local realities and knowledge sharing. In addressing the West‟s cultural superiority within former top-down approaches to development, the concept of local knowledge in participation has been mainstreamed. Local knowledge reflects the realisation within the current paradigm that sustainable development is achievable only if the process is led by the wisdoms and worldviews of locals, which suit their unique circumstances (Hickey & Mohan 2004:28-29). Yet, as Durkheim (1915:9) claims, an understanding of culture requires an understanding of its sense of time. In participatory development, like former approaches, the persistent failure to recognise dominant Western time perspectives risks altering local time consciousness at the expense of local-led outcomes. Crosskey and Rose (1993:116) link rapid, top-down modernisation in Samoa since the 1970s with an altered time consciousness among Samoans, as marked by the West‟s time linearity and precision. For the people of Tutulia, alterations in time consciousness coincided with a decline in tapu, traditional resource management, which recognises that ecological and traditional social rhythms dictate the time for harvesting activities. Concurrently, „clock time‟, taimi, was popularised along with the introduction of „nine to five‟ working days (Crosskey & Rose 1993:117). Clearly, local wisdoms within resource management techniques were abandoned due to the subtle Westernisation of time consciousness. While funding for local change is held by external stakeholders, locals risk abandoning conflicting temporal realities in order to receive the benefits that they believe will be delivered. In fact, the Westernisation of time in participatory development is more concerning than in previous approaches, given that the new rhetoric of local knowledge conceals Western influences that alter time consciousness at the expense of realities on the ground. Ultimately, the subtle and capricious introduction of Western time consciousness into non-Western realities risks undercutting success, as defined by a process of localled change based on local realities.
Recommendations: Recognising Development’s Time Climate Quintessentially, the culture of haste in implementing participatory development perpetuates a vicious cycle that leaves little time for time to be explored. Yet, without recognising the dominance of a Western time climate in policy, practise and definitions of success, stakeholders are ill-prepared to
Finding Time for Time in Participatory Development Projects 5
respond appropriately for sustainable, local-led change. Foremost, academic inquiry into the effects of temporal realities on development outcomes can initiate the realisation of the challenges that result from time restraints, conflicting temporal realities and haste. In particular, the dominance of Western time perceptions must give way to an acknowledgement that assumptions about timing, duration and pace of life vary considerably between, and even within, cultures (Keefe 2009:208). As Rahman (1991:20) states, peopleâ€&#x;s sense of truth and knowledge cannot be ranked because it is relative to the experiences of individuals. As time consciousness is intrinsically linked to the creation of knowledge and worldviews (Allee 1997:51), peopleâ€&#x;s sense of time cannot be ranked either. Rather than ranking rhythms according to the speed at which they are completed, time differences must be must be acknowledged among development practitioners, considering that the current dominance of Westernbased time risks bolstering the flawed notion that Western understandings of time are superior in pace and rhythm. On the contrary, in recognising time differences, the current paradigm can evolve to embrace a time climate that flexibly responds to local rhythms by encompassing multiple time management practices, including process-driven and target-driven actions (Verkoren 2008:228). As this essay has demonstrated, an exploration of seemingly innate time climates uncovers cultural biases and power imbalances in favour of the West at macro and micro levels. As similar explorations are undertaken in the experiences of key stakeholders, a basis can be formed for power imbalances to be addressed in policy and practice.
Recommendations: Practical Considerations In realising the importance of time climates, key practical considerations will increase the likelihood that participation is a sustainable and local led process. Firstly, the mainstream emphasis on quantitative global measures must be balanced with alternative qualitative measurements to define successful development. In the Kingdom of Bhutan, planning procedures are based on Gross National Happiness (GNH), which reflects that a pursuit of happiness is a central measure of well being in national policy (CBS 2008). International promotion and application of success milestones similar to GNH can help stakeholders recognise the complexity of social, economic and environmental factors that contribute to development outcomes. Thus, holding development implementers accountable to both qualitative and quantitative measures will diffuse pressures from a target-focused climate by encouraging process-focused attitudes. Additionally, prior to formalising project timeframes, anthropological research can uncover rhythms and time restrictions within prospect communities in order to consider these rhythms in formulating appropriate project durations. Moreover, the rhythms through which social changes manifest themselves must be accommodated through flexible time-frames and a long-term supervision of these changes over time (Masaki 2004: 136) Even so, if a perpetual culture of haste prevails, qualitative measures risk reflecting the values of the researchers rather than participants (Kilby 2006) and time pressures risk undermining the quality
Finding Time for Time in Participatory Development Projects 6
of pre and post project social research (Masaki 2004:136). For a new awareness to grow it must form deep roots in order to resist external pressures from mainstream approaches (Nowland-Foreman & Stubbs 2005:76). Equally, intellectual understandings of time climates must grow from deeply-rooted wisdoms in the experiences of development players by prioritising a cyclical process of mindfulness, critical reflection, and appropriate reaction to ever-changing circumstances (Britton 1998:4). In this way, a culture of learning can provide space for new time climates to dictate effective policy and practise.
CONCLUSION By overlooking the dominant Western time climate in participatory development, stakeholders jeopardise the successful transformation of sustainable, local-led change from theory into practise. In perceiving time as a scarce resource, mainstream participatory policy and practice emphasises linear, quantitative measurement of success, marked by milestones and everimpending deadlines. The pressure to remain accountable to deadlines spurs an environment of haste, whereby inadequate project time-frames perpetuate superficial fieldwork evaluations, shortcuts and inhibited learning capacities. Moreover, time restrictions in the lives of participants and ongoing power negotiations that transcend development deadlines fail to be accounted for in target-driven success measures.
Recognition that developmentâ€&#x;s western-based time climate is not universal but exists within a multitude of perceptions and rhythms is paramount to respond to complex local realities and facilitate grassroots change. Exploring the influences of temporal dimensions highlights a need for practical measures to counter the culture of haste, such as international qualitative measures, pre-project anthropological assessments and the prioritisation of perpetual critical reflection among stakeholders at all levels. This way, successful participation can break away from restrictive, clock-dictated action and achieve a comprehensive understanding and appropriate reaction to complex local realities and rhythms. In addressing developmentâ€&#x;s time climate, stakeholders can contribute towards processes of accountability, empowerment and local knowledge, as they uphold in theory, so that participation can provide change that is truly for the people, by the people and with the people.
Finding Time for Time in Participatory Development Projects 7
References Adam, B, 1995. Timewatch: the social analysis of time. Polity Press: Cambridge. Ahmad, M.M. 2002. „Who cares? The personal and professional problems of NGO fieldworkers in Bangladesh‟, Development in Practise, 12(2), pp.177-191. Allee, V. 1997. The knowledge evolution: Expanding organizational intelligence. ButterworthHeinemann: Boston. Appadurai, A. 1990. Technology and the reproduction of values in rural India. In F.A Marglin and S.A. Marglin (eds) Dominating knowledge: development, culture and resistance. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Bailur, S. 2007. „The complexities of community participation in ICT for development projects: The case of „our voices‟, Community participation in rural information systems project, London School of economics. Batliwa, S. 2007. „Taking the power out of empowerment: An experiential account‟, Development in Practise, 17(4-5), pp.557-565. Barbier, E.B. 2009. „The concept of sustainable economic development‟, Environmental Conservation, 12, 101-110. Britton, B. 1998. The Learning NGO. Occasional Papers Series, Number 17. The international NGO Training and Research Centre. Oxford. Byrne, B. 1996. „Towards a gendered understanding of conflict‟, IDS Bulletin, 27(3), pp.31-40. Centre for Bhutan Studies, 2008. „Gross National Happines‟, accessed 9 September 2010. Available at: http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/ Chambers, R. 2008. Resolutions in Development Inquiry. Earthscan: London. Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books: London and New York. Cooley, A. and Ron, J. 2002. „The NGO scramble: Organizational insecurity and the political economy of transnational action‟, International Security, 27(1), pp.6-39. Crosskey, P.J.D. and Rose, R,.G. 1993. Artistic heritage in a changing Pacific. CHP Production: Honolulu. Dettmer, W.H. 2003. Strategic navigation: A systems approach to business strategy. ASQ Quality Press: Milwaukee. Durkheim, E. 1915. The elementary forms of the religious life. Trans. J.W. Swain. Allen and Unwin: London. Easterly, W. 2009. „How the Millennium Development Goals are unfair to Africa‟, World Development, 37(1), pp.26-35. Edelman, M. and Haugerud, A. (eds) 2005. The anthropology of development and globalization: from classical political economy to contemporary neoliberalism. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford. Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. A. Sheridan. Peregrine: Harmondsworth.
Finding Time for Time in Participatory Development Projects 1
Fukuda-Parr, S. 2008. „Are the MDGs Priority in development strategies and aid programmes? Only few are!‟, International Poverty Centre, United nations Development Programme, Working paper, 48, October 2008. Goodhand, J. 2006. Aiding Peace? The role of NGOs in armed conflict. ITDG Publishing: UK. Hickey, S. and Mohan, G. 2004. Participation: From tyranny to transformation? Zed Books: London and New York. Honore, C. 2003. In praise of slow: how a worldwide movement is challenging the cult of speed. Orion: London. Jacka, T. 2010. „Women‟s activism, overseas funded participatory development, and governance: A case study from China‟, Women’s Studies International Forum, 33, 99-112. Kak, M. 2007. Citizen participation and democratic governance, in our hands. Concept publishing: New Delhi. Keefe, S.E. 2009. Participatory Development in Appalachia: Cultural Identity, Community and Sustainability. The University of Tennesse Press: Knoxville. Kilby, P. 2006. „Questioning Empowerment: Lessons from women‟s groups in India‟, Participatory Development Working Paper, No.6/03, ANU Masters of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development Program, accessed 9 September 2010. Available at: http://rspas.anu.edu.au/maapd/papers/wp-06-03.pdf Mackay, K. 2007. „How to build better M & E Systems to support better government‟, World Bank, Washington. Mininstry of Foreign Affairs in Denmark, 2005. „Humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan 2001-2005: From Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom‟, Joint Evaluation, Evaluation Department: Denmark. Mosse, D. 2004. Cultivating development: An ethnography of aid policy and practice. Pluto Pres: London. Mosse, D. 2006. „Anti-social anthropology? Objectivity, objection and the ethnography of public policy and preofessional communities‟, Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute, 12, 935-956. Nowland-Foreman, G and Stubbs, D. 2005. „Free and Equal: A review of NZAID Pacific Regional Disability Programme for New Zealand Agency for International Development‟, accessed 9 September 2010. Available at: http://www.forumsec.org/UserFiles/File/Regional_Doc_Review_of_the_NZaid_Pacific_Helath_Sect or_program.pdf?phpMyAdmin=a2498005399765db990bdeaef994e9d1 Nowotly, H. 1994. Time. Cambridge: Polity Press. Rahman, M.A. 1991. „The theoretical standpoint of PAR‟ in O.Fals-Borda and M.A. Rahman (eds), Action and Knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research, Apex: New York, pp.13-23. Rifkin, J. 1985. Time wars: The primary conflict in human history. Touchstone: New York.
Finding Time for Time in Participatory Development Projects 1
UN-HABITAT, 2005. „How far is the world from the slum target?‟, Habitat Debate, 11(5), pp.5-6. United Nations, 2008. „Ban Ki-moon pledges to mobilize action to reach Millennium Development Goals‟, accessed 2 September 2010. Available at: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25411&Cr=millennium&Cr1=development United Nations, 2010. „We can end poverty: Millenium development goals‟, accessed 21 August 2010. Available at: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml Verkoren, W. 2008. The owl and the dove: Knowledge strategies to improve peacebuilding. Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam. Winters, M.S. 2010. „Accountability, participation and foreign aid effectiveness‟, International Studies Review, 12, pp.218-243. Young, P, Hong, P. and Ramic, J. 2009. „Development-induced impoverishment among involuntarily displaced populations‟, Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, 25(3), pp.221-238.
Finding Time for Time in Participatory Development Projects 2