7.3 The Guideline Documents and Working on Discourses of Social Investment
97
participatory. This is because communities’ knowledge, views and needs would be
shaping the programme’s design and implementation.
On the other hand, the IFC attempts to contain or ameliorate communities’
voices and agency through the establishment of a “grievance mechanism for affected
communities” (Torrance, 2012, p. 15). This mechanism is intended to “receive and
facilitate resolution of affected communities’ concerns” (Torrance, 2012, p. 15).
Nonetheless, the IFC does not specify who should mediate the conflicts between
company and communities, leaving the power of regulatory decision-making to
companies. Companies themselves tend to arbitrate in the case of grievances, which
is unlikely to lead to impartial problem-solving.
The IFC Performance Standards are not the only guideline document that utilises
working on discourses while also referring to a participatory approach. The World
Bank Group Community-Driven Principles also adopts working on discourses when
referring to a working with approach, as in the following extract:
When poor communities are trusted to drive development and are given appropriate information, support and clear rules, a system can be put in place not to provide for poor people,
but to facilitate their active and on-going role in rolling out poverty reduction efforts. (WBG,
2002, p. 307)
The extract above adopts an authoritative discourse that positions the company as
a superior body. For example, here the Community-Driven Development Principles implies that the ‘poor’, or materially deprived communities should submit to
the company’s assessment of communities’ capacity to achieve their own development. According to this guideline document, the funding organisation is responsible for establishing “simple rules and strong incentives, supported by monitoring
and evaluation” (WBG, 2002, p. 321) to prompt communities’ development. These
Community-Driven Development segments do not recognise the (poor) communities
as equal partners with O&G companies. On the contrary, the segment proposes a
hierarchical approach, where the companies are positioned as superior to communities (the poor). In this case, rhetoric used by the Community-Driven document
reinforces the powerful roles funding institutions—such as big enterprises—have in
host communities. ‘Development’ is positioned as the means to justify ‘developed’
nations and/or institutions’ dominance over ‘developing’ nations or poor people, as
informed by the critical perspectives explored in Chapter 4 (Escobar, 1992, 2002;
Shrestha, 1995). In the Community-Driven Principles development can be read as
a new form of discursive and material (economic) colonialism (Cornwall & Brock,
2005; Escobar, 2002; Shrestha, 1995; Rahnema, 1991).
Hierarchical relations are also demonstrated in the Community-Driven Principles,
which establishes alternative institutional arrangements to drive community development. Within this arrangement, the main actors for promoting development are the
government, NGOs, and/or private organisations. The following quotes, extracted
from Table 9.1 of the World Bank Group document, indicate the actors responsible
for a community-driven approach:
Local government mobilises the community with the help of contracted NGOs or private
firms employing facilitators;
97
participatory. This is because communities’ knowledge, views and needs would be
shaping the programme’s design and implementation.
On the other hand, the IFC attempts to contain or ameliorate communities’
voices and agency through the establishment of a “grievance mechanism for affected
communities” (Torrance, 2012, p. 15). This mechanism is intended to “receive and
facilitate resolution of affected communities’ concerns” (Torrance, 2012, p. 15).
Nonetheless, the IFC does not specify who should mediate the conflicts between
company and communities, leaving the power of regulatory decision-making to
companies. Companies themselves tend to arbitrate in the case of grievances, which
is unlikely to lead to impartial problem-solving.
The IFC Performance Standards are not the only guideline document that utilises
working on discourses while also referring to a participatory approach. The World
Bank Group Community-Driven Principles also adopts working on discourses when
referring to a working with approach, as in the following extract:
When poor communities are trusted to drive development and are given appropriate information, support and clear rules, a system can be put in place not to provide for poor people,
but to facilitate their active and on-going role in rolling out poverty reduction efforts. (WBG,
2002, p. 307)
The extract above adopts an authoritative discourse that positions the company as
a superior body. For example, here the Community-Driven Development Principles implies that the ‘poor’, or materially deprived communities should submit to
the company’s assessment of communities’ capacity to achieve their own development. According to this guideline document, the funding organisation is responsible for establishing “simple rules and strong incentives, supported by monitoring
and evaluation” (WBG, 2002, p. 321) to prompt communities’ development. These
Community-Driven Development segments do not recognise the (poor) communities
as equal partners with O&G companies. On the contrary, the segment proposes a
hierarchical approach, where the companies are positioned as superior to communities (the poor). In this case, rhetoric used by the Community-Driven document
reinforces the powerful roles funding institutions—such as big enterprises—have in
host communities. ‘Development’ is positioned as the means to justify ‘developed’
nations and/or institutions’ dominance over ‘developing’ nations or poor people, as
informed by the critical perspectives explored in Chapter 4 (Escobar, 1992, 2002;
Shrestha, 1995). In the Community-Driven Principles development can be read as
a new form of discursive and material (economic) colonialism (Cornwall & Brock,
2005; Escobar, 2002; Shrestha, 1995; Rahnema, 1991).
Hierarchical relations are also demonstrated in the Community-Driven Principles,
which establishes alternative institutional arrangements to drive community development. Within this arrangement, the main actors for promoting development are the
government, NGOs, and/or private organisations. The following quotes, extracted
from Table 9.1 of the World Bank Group document, indicate the actors responsible
for a community-driven approach:
Local government mobilises the community with the help of contracted NGOs or private
firms employing facilitators;