![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper focuses on participation in decision-making processes and how rural youth could benefit from its use in development projects and initiatives. General literature and relevant international experiences related to participation mechanisms aimed at youth show that participation boosts interventions linked to improvements of young people’s livelihoods and developmental opportunities. However, participation mechanisms are less explored (and used) in rural settings: we know little of the effectivity of rural participation, even less so for youth, in developing countries. Based on the review of 54 documented cases about participation of rural youth in developing countries, we conclude that participation mechanisms towards rural youth can produce substantial results to enhance the development and social inclusion opportunities through three channels. First, collecting rural youth´s opinions around issues relevant to them through platforms that are sensible to the challenges they face to participate. Second, capitalising rural youth and their organisations, improving their financial assets but also working in character skills and intergenerational partnerships that let them break the status quo. Third, articulating youth with new institutions, organisations, and territories through new links supported by diversification of the urban-rural continuum and new information technologies.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. For the case of the urban bias on employment programmes, see MicroLinks Citation2017, UNICEF Citation2011, p. 35.
2. On the limitations of the literature on youth participation, see for instance the work of Skalli and Thomas (Citation2015) for Youth Power who argue that so far ‘the academic empirical literature does not provide a basis for answering the question of “what works” in youth civic engagement and voice, youth organisations and leadership. There is limited academic empirical work on the impact of youth programming on individuals, organisations, and institutions. The literature does not establish causal links between the impact of interventions on the individual and the long-term impact on governance. There is very little empirical work on the effectiveness of different program components. There is more evidence on the impact of civic education interventions, but the link between civic education and youth civic engagement and voice remains unclear’ (Skalli & Thomas, Citation2015, pp. 9-10).
3. Skalli and Thomas (Citation2015) set an interesting differentiation between programmes related to civic engagement to programmes working on civic education: the latter are more common to find (as they are linked to education goals) than the former.
4. YouthPower’s ‘Systematic Review of Positive Youth Development Programs in Low- and Middle-Income Countries’ presents some non-experimental evaluations related to youth participation (YouthPower, Citation2017a).
5. Check Appendix 1.
6. Check www.youthpolicy.org.
7. While these two indexes provide valuable insights into aspects of youth involvement in the public sphere, their definitions of participation are very structured towards electoral participation. For instance, CYDI uses ‘electoral education’ as one of its three indictors for political participation, while GYWI uses five indicators for civic participation, including democracy level and voting age.
8. Hart defined tokenism as ‘those instances in which children are apparently given a voice, but in fact have little or no choice about the subject or the style of communicating it, and little or no opportunity to formulate their own opinions’ (Hart, Citation1992, p. 9).
9. IAP2 stands for International Association for Public Participation. Permission to use its material was obtained by the authors on February 12th, 2018. Other classifications for youth participation include Hart’s classic eight-level ‘ladder of participation’ for children: manipulation, decoration, tokenism, assigned but informed, consulted and informed, adult-initiated shared decisions with children, child-initiated and directed; and child-initiated shared decisions with adults (Hart, Citation1992, p. 8). Karsten (Citation2012) managed to categorise up to 36 models elaborated between 1969 and 2012 classifying youth participation, including Hart´s and IAP2´s. Also check Lansdown and O’Kane (Citation2014) series for Save the Children on the issue.
10. While IAP2 includes ‘involvement’ as a differentiated stage in the levels of involvement of youth people in decision-making process, we will follow OECD’s four-level interpretation of this framework.
12. ‘Caribbean youth priorities take centre stage at ministerial meeting in Antigua and Barbuda’. (28 April 2015). Pacnews Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1828104248?accountid=28391.
13. Nepal hosts SAARC regional dialogue. (24 March 2016). Himalayan Times Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1775586425?accountid=28391.
14. Check https://rimisp.org/proyecto/jovenes_rurales/ (last accessed 23 May 2018).
15. See UNFPA’s ‘Youth Participation Guide’ at: http://nmd.bg/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/UNFPA-YOUTH-PARTICIPATION-GUIDE-11-Nov-08-_email_.pdf.
16. Check: https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/jahia-events/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/events/2009/gyap_09.pdf (accessed 16 May 2018).
17. UNFPA’s Youth Participation Guide. Available at: http://nmd.bg/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/UNFPA-YOUTH-PARTICIPATION-GUIDE-11-Nov-08-_email_.pdf.
18. Check: https://www.ifad.org/web/operations/project/id/1661/country/mali (accessed 16 May 2018).
19. On the concept of achievers, see Nairn, Judith, and Freeman (Citation2006).
20. For instance, Youth Power’s ‘Positive Youth Development Approach’.
21. Some of the exceptions raised by OECD include the ‘Network of Young Producers and Agricultural Professionals of Togo’ (REJEPPAT) that developed greater lobby capacities to influence for clearing ‘farmland and supporting rural youth setting up in farming’. Also, the ‘Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development’ is pushing a bill to systematically include young farmers into policymaking relevant to them (OECD, Citation2018, p. 90).
22. Following Heckman and Kautz (Citation2013) we prefer the term ‘character skills’ over soft skills; however, as most interventions under review in this paper still refer to them as soft skills, we use both concepts interchangeably.
23. YouthPower is a USAID project that elaborates evidence on ‘what works’ for youth development, particularly on economic, health and education. About its approach, check: http://www.youthpower.org/youthpower-about-page (accessed 18 May 2018).
24. See CORY initiative at IFAD website: https://is.gd/xCxohS.
25. See Swades Foundation ‘About us’ section at: https://is.gd/yiCOsv.
26. ‘After Access’ project applies surveys that ‘break out of the traditional connectivity narrative, and approach a nuanced understanding of how individuals navigate the barriers to meaningful access and use’. Among the topics raised are ‘online harassment, their preferences on social media sharing and their use of mobile phones and the Internet as enablers of economic activity’. See http://afteraccess.net/about-afteraccess.
27. Aguero (Citation2018).
28. Countries under study include Kenya, Mozambique, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa and Tanzania. Kenya and South Africa have the largest percentage of rural young people owning a cellphone (78.2% and 77.3% respectively) and Rwanda has the least percentage (29.5%).
29. Countries under study include Bangladesh, Cambodia, Pakistan and India.