This article explores community participation to evaluate its contribution to sustainable development. The article highlights that there are various structural, social, and political dimensions to participation and that, therefore, a ‘tick the box’ approach to participation is unjustified and misleading. The article employs a constructive criticism of key texts from the field of political science, development studies, and environmental management and governance and analyzes recent empirical studies from Indonesia, Sweden, Thailand, and Australia to illustrate participation in various contexts. It examines the extensive body of research and writing on participation and addresses questions on what differentiates real participation from participation in name only. It identifies three approaches to participation: the citizenship approach, community approach, and stakeholder approach. It takes on a governmentality framework to analyze participation. It argues that the outcome of participation is achieving ‘governance at a distance.’ Participation is, however, a tool that helps attain democratic, empowered citizenship. The outcome of participation is, however, limited to the ability of the governing body to consider community participation in making decisions. The article suggests that community participation in governing should be evaluated to determine if it helps promote and achieve equitable and sustainable development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
K Hinoca Assumi (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: