Participation has become a central promise in development and regional planning. Policymakers and international bodies increasingly argue that involving citizens in shaping development leads to better outcomes. Yet inside participatory initiatives, the practical realities are often far more complex than the rhetoric suggests. My research on Ghana’s Decent Work Programme (GDWP) (Arko, 2019) offers a close look into these complexities and reveals how power, incentives, and politics shape participatory development on the ground.
The origins of the GDWP were tied to a broader global agenda. In 1999, the International Labour Organization (ILO) launched its Decent Work Agenda, a flagship initiative aimed at promoting employment that is productive, fairly remunerated, secure, and grounded in social protection and rights. The ILO saw decent work not only as a labour policy goal but as a foundation for development. To make this vision real, it worked with member countries to integrate decent work principles into national and local development strategies.
Ghana became one of the pilot countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, with the GDWP designed to show how decent work could be advanced through participatory and locally driven approaches. Between 2003 and 2009, the GDWP, implemented with support from the ILO, sought to improve conditions in Ghana’s informal economy. A key innovation was the creation, implemented with support from the ILO, of a participatory local economic development platform, the Subcommittee for Productive and Gainful Employment (SPGE). The SPGE brought together small business operators and local government officials to identify challenges and design interventions for enhancing decent work. The SPGE aligned with the ILO’s belief that decent work grows stronger when the actors closest to workplace realities help shape policy. It represented Ghana’s first attempt to institutionalise participation specifically for local economic development, aligning with broader international calls for more inclusive development processes (Pike, Rodríguez-Pose & Tomaney, 2007).
One of the first districts to pilot the programme and the setting for this study was the Ajumako Enyan Essiam, a largely rural district in Ghana’s Central Region characterised by high poverty levels, limited formal employment opportunities, and an economy dominated by informal enterprises. With more than 90% of its workforce operating in the informal sector, the district offered a revealing setting for exploring how local actors engage with participatory development initiatives and how such spaces function within real governance constraints. At the programme’s inception, the ILO provided funds, technical support, and legitimacy. It worked with district authorities to embed the SPGE into local governance processes.
However, the SPGE’s evolution in the Ajumako Enyan Essiam district showed that participation is rarely straightforward. The moment the initiative reached the local level, influence was no longer in the hands of a single organisation. Small business operators, frequently portrayed as passive beneficiaries, were highly strategic in their engagement. Their participation often hinged on whether meetings or activities offered tangible incentives such as allowances or training opportunities. As one district officer explained, operators would respond to invitations by asking whether “there was money in it.” These expectations, shaped by years of engagement with donor programmes, influenced not only attendance but also the direction of the SPGE’s work.
Local government bureaucrats further shaped the participatory platform in unanticipated ways. Some of the SPGE’s resources were perceived to be mishandled, echoing longstanding public concerns about local-level corruption in Ghana (Okuru & Armah-Attoh, 2015). For small business operators who joined the SPGE, hoping it would expand access to support and finance, these developments eroded trust. Their withdrawal over time weakened the platform’s momentum and highlighted how participation can falter when confidence in local institutions is low.
The most decisive challenge, however, emerged after Ghana’s 2008 election. District leadership positions in Ghana are heavily influenced by the national government; a change in ruling party often leads to changes in district-level appointments. Once new political leaders assumed office, they sought to replace the SPGE members associated with the previous administration. Despite efforts by the ILO and long-serving members to preserve continuity, the political reality prevailed. Newly appointed members lacked the training and institutional memory of their predecessors, and the SPGE struggled to sustain itself. Without donor funding and with weakened participation, the platform became inactive and, by 2012, ceased to function.
The GDWP illustrates how participatory development often succeeds or fails not because of its design, but because of the everyday dynamics that shape how actors engage with it. Incentive structures, political cycles, governance challenges, and expectations borne out of past experiences all influenced the SPGE. Participation was not simply about inviting people to the table; it was about navigating the shifting motivations and constraints of those who came.
For regional development practitioners, the lessons are clear. Participatory structures must be designed with an awareness of political turnover, local governance realities, and the motivations of community actors. Trust-building and accountability are central, not optional. And any effort to strengthen participation must recognise that it unfolds within broader institutional and political environments that shape how people act.
The ILO’s Decent Work Agenda sought to demonstrate that inclusive, locally driven approaches can advance employment and well-being. Ghana’s experience shows that this vision is compelling, but realising it requires participatory spaces that are resilient, trusted, and aligned with local political and economic realities. Only then can participation genuinely contribute to better regional development outcomes.
Read the full paper here: Arko, B. (2019). Understanding power asymmetry in participatory development spaces: Insights from Ghana’s Decent Work Programme. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 6(1), 399–404.
Connect with the Author
Benedict Arko is currently a Lecturer at the Department of Geography Education, University of Education, Winneba, in Ghana. He is a development geographer with a special interest in the study of the spatial dimension of development in its discourses and materializations from critical perspectives. These include issues of regional and local economic development, decentralization, and regional and urban planning. He also has a varied background in development practice with experience from the public, non-governmental, and international development co-operation.
: Benedict Arko