136
9 Closing Reflections
9.3.4 Implication 4: Establishing Open Dialogue
with Host Governments
Power relations influence companies’ and communities’ understandings of communities’ needs and ‘local knowledge’ even when companies take a community-centred
approach to social investment (Mosse, 2001). As Mosse (2001) argues, actors such
as governments and donor institutions are not passive facilitators of local knowledge production and planning. Governments and international donors, such as international banks and O&G companies, have increasingly facilitated communities’
‘participation’ in social investment (Mosse, 2001).
In community-centred and participatory social investment programmes, having
donors and government agendas influencing social investment design promotes a
paradigm shift from a participatory approach to a top-down model of social investment (Mosse, 2001). With this in mind, O&G personnel may need to step back
from parts of the project design in order to accommodate a genuinely participatory
approach to social investment. As explored in Chapter 8, one expert (P4) remarked
how communities exercised ownership through negotiating the project’s framework
and organisation. According to this expert, the community took over the project
design and delivery and dealt with its inherent tensions and conflicts by negotiating
their own domestic politics independently of any company involvement.
In this sense, social investment experts and government representatives should
exercise caution during social investment design and planning phases. Companies’
and governments’ presence may disrupt a community’s sense of ownership of any
social investment programme. Rather, companies and governments could develop
mechanisms (such as that discussed by P4) which ensure communities have the
necessary space and time to manage their own domestic politics and take ownership
of any social investment programmes.
9.3.5 Implication 5: Raising Social Investment Experts’
Awareness of Their Influence on Shaping
Communities’ Needs
Experts in this research extensively discussed the impact of governments’ participation—or lack of participation—on O&G social investment. Participants held diverse
opinions regarding the role of the government. Social investment experts’ opinions
ranged from the government’s participation in social investment being indispensable
to the sustainability of the social investment, to the government ideally not having
any role in O&G social investment.
Prior to designing social investment programmes, O&G companies should clarify
with host governments their (governments’) expectations and roles for social investment, in line with working with discourses of social investment. In this way, governments and O&G companies may better negotiate their roles and expectations, in
9 Closing Reflections
9.3.4 Implication 4: Establishing Open Dialogue
with Host Governments
Power relations influence companies’ and communities’ understandings of communities’ needs and ‘local knowledge’ even when companies take a community-centred
approach to social investment (Mosse, 2001). As Mosse (2001) argues, actors such
as governments and donor institutions are not passive facilitators of local knowledge production and planning. Governments and international donors, such as international banks and O&G companies, have increasingly facilitated communities’
‘participation’ in social investment (Mosse, 2001).
In community-centred and participatory social investment programmes, having
donors and government agendas influencing social investment design promotes a
paradigm shift from a participatory approach to a top-down model of social investment (Mosse, 2001). With this in mind, O&G personnel may need to step back
from parts of the project design in order to accommodate a genuinely participatory
approach to social investment. As explored in Chapter 8, one expert (P4) remarked
how communities exercised ownership through negotiating the project’s framework
and organisation. According to this expert, the community took over the project
design and delivery and dealt with its inherent tensions and conflicts by negotiating
their own domestic politics independently of any company involvement.
In this sense, social investment experts and government representatives should
exercise caution during social investment design and planning phases. Companies’
and governments’ presence may disrupt a community’s sense of ownership of any
social investment programme. Rather, companies and governments could develop
mechanisms (such as that discussed by P4) which ensure communities have the
necessary space and time to manage their own domestic politics and take ownership
of any social investment programmes.
9.3.5 Implication 5: Raising Social Investment Experts’
Awareness of Their Influence on Shaping
Communities’ Needs
Experts in this research extensively discussed the impact of governments’ participation—or lack of participation—on O&G social investment. Participants held diverse
opinions regarding the role of the government. Social investment experts’ opinions
ranged from the government’s participation in social investment being indispensable
to the sustainability of the social investment, to the government ideally not having
any role in O&G social investment.
Prior to designing social investment programmes, O&G companies should clarify
with host governments their (governments’) expectations and roles for social investment, in line with working with discourses of social investment. In this way, governments and O&G companies may better negotiate their roles and expectations, in