1.  Repercussions Beyond the Immediate Participatory Experience:

• “The success of one action creates the possibility of undertaking another, setting in motion a flow of successive actions. Furthermore, the process tends to multiply from one group to another and from one village to another. Successful actions of one group create a demonstration effect on others in a village on the possibilities of self-development. After a point, people's groups tend to develop an urge to expand the process among others, for they begin to realize that it is only when several groups join hands and begin to act together that they will have the strength and the bargaining power to tackle larger issues of common concern to them” (Wijnaraga, 1992).
• “Development programs often reinforce each other and acquire political significance through unforeseen multiplier effects” (Knippers, 1991).

• Describe an event or occurrence that was an example that created consequences beyond its immediate locale or context?

• “Development projects that reallocate economic resources, increase income and expand participation in the economy also create new and potentially more powerful interest groups that can make claims on and challenge central authority. Indeed, the creation of countervailing power is often a precondition for sustaining organizational reforms such as administrative decentralization” (Rondinelli, 1993).
• “Social action projects having only economic goals initially may give rise to explicitly political activism” (Knippers, 1991).
• “Sustainable development is a revolutionary political and social concept. It will not succeed without the conviction and participation of the masses of people who must bring it about. Gaining that conviction and participation is a more important challenge for external assistance agencies than providing capital and technical assistance” (Mikesell, 1992).

• Do external development agencies have the right to put in motion a development process that can “challenge the central authority” or encourage “explicit political activism”?
• What conditions can justify external agencies interfering in the internal affairs of another country?

• “Grass-roots development does not necessarily require the prior seizure of the central power of the state” (Knippers, 1991).
• “Even under the most authoritarian governments there are often opportunities for progressive change” (Edwards and Hulme, 1992).
• “Is it true that development cannot occur unless all the macro-policies and relationships are conducive to local development initiatives? Certainly not” (Burky, 1993).

• Can PD create the conditions for more accommodating macro institutions?
• Can a leadership that has not been involved in PD be able to promote it when in power?

• “A revolution can be the work of overpowering leaders and submissive, fearful followers; an evolutionary process requires instead the full and free participation of all social groups and the work of facilitators that help people expand their perception of the ever-unfolding reality” (Kamenetsky, 1993).
• “Today, there is the opportunity for a quiet revolution, one based on people helping themselves” (Stokes, 1981).

• If PD is an “evolutionary process” rather than a “revolutionary” one, is it its gradual pace and inclusive nature that  make it acceptable to authorities?  Is it “quietly” undermining?

• “Developmental NGOs will not only forge linkages between grassroots organizations, but they will also forge linkages with other movements that have related missions--peace, environment, women, human rights and consumer affairs. In this grand vision, NGOs become a force for dramatic social change that restructures class relationships and reforms global economic processes by non-violent, non-revolutionary means” (Edwards and Hulme, 1992).
• “Whether initiatives introduce new power relations or ideologies or support existing ones, every intervention remains a political statement the significance of which must be grasped before programs can be monitored correctly” (Pottier, 1993).

• Should development practitioners tell local and national authorities that PD restructures class relationships, even if by saying this makes the application of PD no longer welcomed by those authorities?

• “Empowerment is an end in itself and should be judged in those terms and not in terms of its functional relationship to other worthy objectives such as cost-effectiveness or efficiency” (Griffin and McKinley, 1994).
• “Empowerment is not only democratic, but may also be efficient” (Griffin and McKinley, 1994).

• Can there be empowerment without efficient results of that empowerment? “The mechanism for inducing local participation can be ideological.  The basic thing is that it must be induced somehow, for involvement of people in some way is a pre-condition for success in development” (Lea and Chaudrhi, 1983)