Skip to content
Home > Youth Participation in International Development – Literature Review

Youth Participation in International Development – Literature Review

Youth participation in international development

Overview

This paper was written to assess and critically engage with the current research and evidence on the impact of youth participation on program outcomes and effectiveness in international development.

This literature review was written by Nathan Linton whilst studying for his Masters of International Development Practice in 2018. Nathan was formerly the Head of Impact at Oaktree, Australia’s largest youth-led international aid & development organisation. You can find out more about Nathan here.

Introduction

In 2007, the World Bank reported that ‘1.5 billion people are aged 12–24 worldwide, 1.3 billion of them in developing countries, the most ever in history’. Douglas et al. (2016, p.4) noted that ‘the world is currently facing a ‘youth bulge’ with 90% of young people living in the global south’ (2013, p. 4). With such a large concentration of young people in less developed contexts, there is a pressing need for the development sector to engage with and understand the challenges facing the current generation of young people.

Young people have been traditionally viewed as beneficiaries in the development process and despite the emphasis on participatory development in the international development sector, there remains limited opportunities for young people to influence the outcomes of the programs where they’re the primary benefactors. With primary school attendance now at 75% in low-income countries, young people have higher rates of education and literacy compared to older generations where only 59% of 35-44 year olds are able to read and write (The World Bank 2007, p.55). As a result of higher education levels and the aptitude for participatory programming, young people have never been better placed to participate in the development process in a meaningful and impactful way.

Despite the significance of the youth bulge, literature specifically addressing youth participation in the development process has been limited. In 2017, the Australian Council for International Development’ (ACFID 2017, p. 13) ‘identified the issue of child and youth participation and its contribution to development effectiveness as a research gap’. Current research is being primarily led by international development NGOs in Australia and the United Kingdom which has resulted in a growing amount of grey literature on the topic. Due to the lack of academic literature on youth participation in international development, current authoritative research is mainly derived from government reports and academic literature from related yet distinct fields. As a consequence, youth participation in international development has the ability to emerge as a new area of academic research building upon the existing literature found in the international & community development, participatory development and youth development fields.

Youth Participation in the Development Literature

The Wold Bank’s 2007 report ‘Development and the Next Generation’ (p.11) introduced the ‘3 lenses of youth participation’ model which subsequent literature has built upon. The report was the first from a global governance institution to discuss youth participation in relation to the youth bulge and its implications for the developing world. The World Bank explained that ‘[t]he framework extends the human capital model by treating not only governments and families, but also young people, as potential investors [in societal development]’ (2007, p.10). The UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), adapted the World Bank’s ‘3 lenses’ model into a framework to be applied more specifically to youth participation in international development. The DFID-CSO Youth Working Group listed the 3 primary ways that youth participation often manifests in the development process. The first was ‘youth as beneficiaries’, the second, ‘youth as partners’ and the third ‘youth as leaders’ (2010, p. 3). They further explained the ‘[importance] for institutions and practitioners to consider all three lenses; they are not mutually exclusive. Youth participation in development is often a combination of all three’ (DFID-CSO Youth Working Group 2010, p.3). This adapted model by DFID has served as the basis for subsequent practice, discussion and analysis on youth participation in international development (Douglas et al. 2018; Asker & Gero 2012; DFID-CSO Youth Working Group 2010). Douglas et al (2010, p.7) further break down the levels of youth participation in development into passive, consultative, partnership, and youth-led participation which draws parallels to Hart’s model for participation (see Hart, R 1992, Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship,UNICEF.). This most recent report by Douglas et al. (2016), builds on the initial work conducted by The World Bank and Hart and expands the development sector’s understanding of how youth participation can be applied in the international development sector.

Competing Definitions of Youth

Whilst the models of youth participation in the most recent literature are highly linked, there are competing definitions of ‘youth’. The World Bank (2007, p.27) defined youth as those aged between 12-24 years, whilst Crave & El Sawi (2001, p.46), in their analysis of the effectiveness of a youth development program in Uganda, define youth as those aged under 30. In both of these cases, the age selection appears to be more arbitrary than based on any formal consensus or criteria. This not only highlights the difficulty of defining ‘youth’ but also shows that the term has the potential to be altered to meet the requirements of donors, communities and governments relating to a range of policy, funding, cultural and religious reasons among others. Douglas et al. (2016, p. 7) acknowledge the contradictory definitions and attempt to unify these divergent sources defining youth as ‘the period of time in which a person makes various life transitions from dependence to independence.’ While this definition allows adaptation to different contexts, its very broad scope makes it difficult to easily apply in development practice as it doesn’t lay out a set of core criteria to apply leaving the categorisation of ‘youth’ open to significant interpretation. The lack of consensus on the age range of ‘youth’ shows a lack of clarity on the topic in the literature.

Youth Development in the Context of Participatory Development Theory & Modernisation Theory

Whilst most sources draw on participatory development theory, elements of modernisation theory are also evident in the literature. Participatory development has been defined as ‘… a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them’ (DFID-CSO Youth Working Group 2010, p. 11). Blaser (2011, p.445) noted that ‘since the mid-1980s… talk of participation started to become ubiquitous in development circles…’ and drew on research from Esteva & Prakash (1998) indicating that ‘the bottom-up [participatory] approach has tended to concentrate on the responses elaborated by those populations subjected to the ‘discipline’ of development’. In the case of the literature, it is youth who are subjected to the ‘discipline of development.’ The literature illustrates a positive approach to youth participation in the development process, even calling it a necessity for positive youth development outcomes. The DFID-CSO Youth Working Group (2010, p.3) indicated that ‘the ultimate aim is to develop youth as partners and leaders in development’. Douglas et al. (2016, p.5) also explain that ‘young people are best placed to identify their own needs and priorities’ implying that a lack of participatory practice leads to less favourable outcomes for young people. As previously discussed, the literature discusses at length the differing forms of youth participation using the ‘3 Lenses’ model and Hart’s ladder which draw largely on participatory development practice. The World Bank (2007, p. 219) highlights the lack of youth participation in development by recognising that ‘[m]any national youth policies are drawn up without adequate consultation with young people’. The literature also discusses that a lack of youth participation can actually be harmful for a country’s development. Crave & El Sawi (2001, p.46) state that ‘[d]evelopment without including a country’s youths in not sustainable’ while London, Zimmerman & Erbstein (2003, p.35) explain that ‘by not integrating youth at all levels, development processes can actually jeopardize the life and future of the community itself.’

Proponents of modernisation theory contends that ‘[s]uccessful development is measured by economic indices such as the Gross National Product (GNP) or per capita income. It is usually assumed that this will automatically lead to positive changes in other indices, such as rates of infant mortality, illiteracy, malnourishment and so on’ (Gardner & Lewis 2015, p. 13). Whilst modernisation theory was less present in the literature, The World Bank acknowledged economic growth as a justification for encouraging the potential of youth participation as a driver of economic growth. They said ‘Human capital, once developed, needs to be used productively to sustain a livelihood. This has long been recognized to be a main path to poverty reduction, because labor is what the poor have in abundance’ (World Bank 2007, p.50). The World Bank (2007, p. 29) also stated that ‘schooling is persistently found to increase productivity, as reflected in earnings.’ These statements assert that a key outcome of youth development is young people earning more in the labour market, as a result of educational attainment thus resulting in poverty reduction. This demonstrates that a modernist position has been taken by The World Bank to youth development. Research by Crave & El Sawi (2001, p.46) on a USAID funded youth capacity building program in Uganda noted that ‘the activities, implemented from 1998-2000, were part of a youth-focused initiative on workforce development and strengthening the capacity of youth organizations’. In addition to ‘workforce development’ being a key aim of the program, a primary success indicator was that ‘several of the trainers had started their own businesses, which they attributed to their gain in entrepreneurial skills…’ (Crave & el Sawi 2001, p. 48). It is clear that this particular development program was intended to encourage participation of young people in the global economic system. Despite the presence of modernisation theory as an influencing factor in some reports, the majority of literature specific to youth participation in development deprioritises economic engagement showing the limited influence of modernist theory in this area.

The Academic Research Gap, NGOs & Grey Literature

An analysis of the literature also shows that youth participatory practices are often applied in NGO and formal institutional settings. Douglas et al. (2006, p. 26) in providing model examples of ‘youth strategies’, only list the youth strategies of Oxfam and World Vision, two INGOs. Much of the literature also identified professionals working in NGOs as the primary audience of the research. The DFID-CSO Youth Working Group (2010, p.1) advised that ‘this guide has been developed to assist donor agencies (multilateral and bilateral) and policy advisors in a range of organisations working with and for youth. It will also be useful for government, NGO and civil society partners’ whilst in ‘Exploring the Link Between Child and Youth Participation and Development Effectiveness – A Learning Paper’ (2015, p.14) it is noted that ‘one audience is the in-country partner staff and INGO partners of the research. The learnings shared are also expected to be of interest to development practitioners more broadly, as well as donors, academics and governments interested in child-centred and child-and youth-focused development.’ Additionally, the paper by Douglas et al. (2016) was compiled by staff and volunteers of the youth development NGO, Oaktree, in conjunction with the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID). Despite the large interest in this area from the international development sector, academic literature on the topic of youth participation in development has been limited. As a result NGOs have attempted to plug this ‘research gap’ demonstrating a large disconnect between the research priorities of academics and the development practice of NGOs. Blaser (2011, p.445), in his discussion of participatory development, noted that the popularisation of participatory development approaches coincided with the rise of NGOs as key agents of international development. This trend informs why NGOs have produced the majority of research on youth participation and development effectiveness. Potential limitations of this are that most of these publications have a narrow application of youth participation in the NGO context alongside the majority of the research being considered ‘grey literature’ lacking the full peer-review process.

Whilst the literature discusses the need for youth participation in development as well as frameworks for incorporating young people in the process, there is a lack of research into how greater youth participation translates to improved development outcomes. The study conducted by Crave & El Sawi (2001) of a USAID funded youth development program indicated some positive results from the participatory process applied in the program. They stated that ‘‘…every attempt was made to model the best practices of working with youths as full partners in planning, implementing, and monitoring activities’ (Crave & El Sawi 2001, p.46). Informal impact assessments conducted one year after the program indicated that many trainers had started their own businesses and ‘almost all of the national trainees had conducted training for others’ (Crave & El Sawi 2001, p.48). This study noted that participants were not paid a ‘sitting fee’, instead attributing the success to young people expressing that ‘training opportunities are rare and personal development was incentive enough to take part’ (Crave & El Saw 2001, p.47). The report ‘Exploring the Link Between Child and Youth Participation and Development Effectiveness – A Learning Paper’ was commissioned by ACFID to test if greater participation had led to effective development outcomes. It was found that ‘Child and youth participation led to positive changes within children and youth themselves…these changes then enabled children and youth to influence broader change within families and communities’ (Exploring the Link Between Child and Youth Participation and Development Effectiveness – A Learning Paper 2017, p.7). This report examined nine case studies across three countries, namely Fiji, Laos and Nepal. Despite positive findings in both studies, it is difficult to extrapolate from such a limited sample size especially considering the studies were conducted 16 years apart. Furthermore, the ACFID report examines both child and youth participation together with limited distinction between the participation of children and youth which limits the ability for practitioners to apply these methods in solely youth contexts. As a result, the limited literature concerning how increased youth participation translates to development effectiveness exposes a large research gap in the field.

Conclusion

The research on youth participation in development has identified numerous areas of importance to researchers and practitioners. The literature clearly articulates the pressing need for young people to be active participants in the development process. Strong examples include the discussion of the ‘youth bulge’ and how young people are underrepresented in the decisions that most impact them. This work was largely identified by the World Bank’s 2007 report ‘Development and the Next Generation’ which generated a greater interest in youth and youth participation by the development sector. Expanding on the points identified by The World Bank, the development sector began to focus on how young people should be further integrated into the development process. This resulted in a refinement of the World Bank’s youth participation approach which saw the development of the ‘3 lenses’ model of youth participation, which has been subject to significant commentary and has been widely adopted into the development practice (‘Exploring the Link Between Child and Youth Participation and Development Effectiveness – A Learning Paper’ 2017, p.19). The literature also drew largely on participatory development theory and, to an extent, modernisation theory, to explain the most effective way youth can participate in the development process. Despite this, divergent opinions in the literature on exactly which age demographic can be constituted as a young person exposed a lack of uniformity in the recognition of youth. A lack of academic scholarship directly relating to the topic has meant that most literature has been, and continues to be, developed by NGOs, narrowing the scope of experience and focus. A research gap has also been identified in regards to the relationship between increased youth participation and improved development outcomes. Whilst there have been many positive contributions by the literature, this review makes it clear that the space is significantly underdeveloped. This is in spite of the large proportion of young people in the global south and the incredible opportunity the international community currently has to make a positive difference to young people now and in the future.

See Also

Further Reading

Note: To help cover the costs of running this website, links marked with an (*) contain affiliate links. That means if you choose to make a purchase after clicking the link, I will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thank you for your understanding and support – Nathan 🙂

References

Asker, S, & Gero, A 2012, ‘The Role of Child and Youth Participation in Development Effectiveness: A Literature Review’, ChildFund: Australia, pp. 1-25, Viewed 5 May, 2018, https://www.unicef.org/adolescence/cypguide/files/Role_of_Child_and_Youth_Participation_in_Development_Effectiveness.pdf

Blaser, M 2011, ‘From Progress to Risk: Development, Participation, and Post-Disciplinary Techniques of Control’, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, vol. 28, no. 3-4, pp. 439-454.

Crave, MT & El Sawi, G 2001, ‘Youth Capacity Building: An International Development Case Study In Uganda’, Journal of Family and Consumer Services, vol. 93, no. 5, pp.46-49.

DFID-CSO Youth Working Group 2010, Youth Participation in Development: A Guide for Development Agencies and Policy Makers viewed May 18th 2018, http://www.youthpolicy.org/wpcontent/uploads/library/2010_Youth_Participation_in_Development_Guide_Eng.pdf

Douglas, A, Gingold, S, Purdue, S, Graham, E & Fung, G 2016, ACFID Practice Note: Youth Participation In Development, Oaktree, viewed 26th April 2018, https://acfid.asn.au/sites/site.acfid/files/resource_document/ACFID%20Practice%20Note%20-%20Youth%20Participation%20in%20Development%20FINAL.pdf

Esteva, G, & Prakash, MS 1998, Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures, Zed Books, London.

‘Exploring the Link Between Child and Youth Participation and Development Effectiveness’, Mid Term Learning Paper March 2015, viewed 24th April 2018, https://www.yacwa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ChildParticipationDevelopmentEffectivenssMidTermLearningPaper_March2015.pdf

Gardner, K & Lewis, D 2015 ‘Chapter 1: Understanding Development: Theory and Practice into the Twenty-First Century’, Anthropology and Development: Challenges for the 21st Century, Pluto Press.

Hart, R 1992, Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship, UNICEF.

London, JK, Zimmerman, K & Erbstein N 2003, ‘Youth-Led Research and Evaluation: Tools for Youth, Organizational, and Community Development’, New Directions For Evaluation, vol. 98, pp.33-45.

World Bank 2007, Development and the Next Generation, viewed 20 May 2018, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/556251468128407787/pdf/359990WDR0
First published 31 Jan 2020. Last edited 18 Nov 2022.

By Nathan Linton
First published 19 June 2018. Last updated 14 April 2024.

SUBSCRIBE

Subscribe below and get the latest updates straight to your inbox. By submitting your information, you’re giving me permission to email you. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Tags: