Advertisement

Participatory Monitoring of Development Projects in the South Pacific

  • John Schischka
Chapter
Part of the Rethinking International Development series book series (RID)

Abstract

In this chapter, John Schischka considers the merits of a capability-inspired participatory appraisal methodology, which he has applied in three South Pacific countries—Vanuatu, Samoa and New Zealand. He shows how this approach can be used to identify multiple capability deprivations and various forms of vulnerability. He also shows how it can improve strategies for tackling poverty by making them more relevant for local people. Schischka’s approach relies on focus group discussions that are not donor led and give voice to the marginalised. These discussions are empowering in the sense that they enable local people to express pride in, and take ownership of, past achievements and to become active agents of change. One interesting finding is that the focus group methodology itself may contribute to raising the consciousness of new participants. Schischka argues that a capability-based focus group methodology has the potential for transforming non-governmental organisation (NGO) practices. Instead of relying on income, donors could use the growth of valuable capabilities as the criteria for judging the success or failure of their project. Schischka argues that this approach makes accountability a two-way process, and shows that it can be used to monitor and evaluate each stage of a development project.

References

  1. Asian Development Bank. (1999). Poverty: Is it an Issue in the Pacific? Manila: Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
  2. Biggeri, M. (2014). Education Policies for Agency and Participation. In C. S. Hart, M. Biggeri, & B. Babic (Eds.), Agency and Participation in Childhood and Youth: International Applications of the Capability Approach in Schools and Beyond (pp. 44–62). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  3. Hart, C. S., Biggeri, M., & Babic, B. (Eds.). (2014). Agency and Participation in Childhood and Youth: International Applications of the Capability Approach in Schools and Beyond. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  4. Hickey, S., & Mohan, G. (2004). Towards Participation as Transformation: Critical Themes and Challenges. In S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds.), Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation (pp. 3–24). London/New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  5. Johnson, L. M., & Dhal, R. J. (1997). Western Samoa Economic Report. Honolulu: Bank of Hawaii Economics Department.Google Scholar
  6. Joshi, A., & Moore, M. (2000). The Mobilising Potential of Anti-Poverty Programmes (Discussion Paper Series) (Vol. 374). Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.Google Scholar
  7. Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Education and Democratic Citizenship: Capabilities and Quality Education. Journal of Human Development, 7(3), 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. O’Neill, O. (2001). Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Øyen, E. (2002). Best Practices in Poverty Reduction: An Analytical Framework. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  10. Pene, F., Taufe’ulungaki, A., & Benson, C. (2002). Tree of Opportunity: Rethinking Pacific Education. Suva: Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific.Google Scholar
  11. Sanga, K., & Niroa, J. (2004). First Steps and Small Beginnings in Vanuatu Education Research. In K. Sanga, J. Niroa, K. Matai, & L. Crowl (Eds.), Rethinking Vanuatu Education Together (pp. 12–21). Port Vila/Suva: Ministry of Education, and Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific.Google Scholar
  12. Schischka, J. A. (2002). The Capabilities Approach as a Metric for Economic Development. Paper Presented to the Second International Conference on the Capability Approach (9–10 September), Von Hügel Institute, St Edmunds’ College, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  13. Schischka, J. A. (2003). The Capabilities Approach as a Metric for Economic Development: A Case Study in Samoa. Paper Presented to the Third International Conference on the Capability Approach (7–9 September), University of Pavia, Italy.Google Scholar
  14. Schischka, J. A. (2004). The Capabilities Approach as a Metric for the Appraisal of Poverty Alleviation Programmes. Paper Presented to the Human Development and Capability Association Conference: Enhancing Human Security (5–7 September), University of Pavia, Italy.Google Scholar
  15. Schischka, J. A. (2005). The Capabilities Approach in Economic Development. Ph.D. Thesis, Lincoln University, Christchurch.Google Scholar
  16. Schischka, J. A. (2006). The Long Term Operationalistion of the Capabilities Approach by a New Zealand Based Development Agency. Paper Presented to the Human Development and Capability Approach Conference: Freedom and Justice, University of Groningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  17. Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  18. Tuilaepa, F. S., & Nartea, G. V. (2002). Poverty Alleviation in Samoa: A Brief Review of the Experience from 1970 to 2000. Paper Presented to the New Zealand Development Network Conference, Massey University, Palmerston North.Google Scholar
  19. UNDP. (1999). Pacific Human Development Report: Creating Opportunities. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Vanuatu Ministry of Education. (2001). Draft Education Master Plan. Port Vila: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Schischka
    • 1
  1. 1.International Programme Working GroupChristian World ServiceChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations