This article was downloaded by: [202.51.76.238]On: 08 June 2015, At: 22:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Rural SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrso20

Community governance andpeacebuilding in NepalKeshav Kumar Acharyaaa School of Behavioral Cognitive and Social Science, University ofNew England, Armidale, NSW 2350, AustraliaPublished online: 27 Apr 2015.

To cite this article: Keshav Kumar Acharya (2015) Community governance and peacebuilding inNepal, Rural Society, 24:1, 65-84, DOI: 10.1080/10371656.2014.1001477

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10371656.2014.1001477

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10371656.2014.1001477&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-04-27http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrso20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10371656.2014.1001477http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10371656.2014.1001477

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Community governance and peacebuildingin NepalKeshav Kumar Acharya*

School of Behavioral Cognitive and Social Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350,Australia

This study is based on an institutional analysis of twenty-six grass-roots levelorganizations which is examined by organizational surveys and three focus groupdiscussions. Findings show that community-based organizations are key actors ofcommunity governance in Nepal and their functions are supportive inreinforcing the peacebuilding process in many ways. First, it plays a significantrole in addressing inequality and isolation. Second, its continual practice fostersawareness creation, promote democratic exercise, imparts voice to the voicelessand gives clout to the powerless. Third, it inspires the partners to create anenabling environment for mobilizing local resources. Finally, it strengthens thestructure of accountability and contributes to peacebuilding. However, resultsindicate that the overall practice of governance at the community level wasmoderate to efficient. Following the discussion of results, this study proposessome recommendations regarding the operation of a sound peace process atgrass-roots level through community governance.

Keywords: community-based organizations; community governance; exclusion;peacebuilding; Nepal

IntroductionPeacebuilding is a post-conflict action, predominately a diplomatic course forimproving the economic and social aspects of people (Latifi, 2011). It is a processof cultivating new environments and new cultures which involves obliging con-tacts between opponents and establishing normalized relations of the political,social, economic and humanitarian kind between ordinary citizens on bothsides of a conflict (Reychler, 2006). In a peacebuilding process, a multiple set of

*Email: keshavlacharya@gmail.com

Rural Society, 2015Vol. 24, No. 1, 6584, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10371656.2014.1001477

2015 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

mailto:keshavlacharya@gmail.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10371656.2014.1001477

initiatives from a diverse range of actors including the state, market, civil society/local citizens and international communities is imperative to address the rootcauses of violence and to protect the people before, during and after the periodof aggression (Ricigliano, 2003). Through these, the root causes of conflictsand violence are addressed, the logical end of conflict is achieved, a strong andlegitimate national authority is established, democratic political processesare instituted, responsibility and resources for development are transferred tothe new government, the economy is strengthened and social and human capitalare promoted (Rondinelli & Montgomery, 2005). Nevertheless, the conflictingsocieties to a greater extent are psychologically, physically and materiallyobstructed by violent forces (Staub, 2012). Such obstructions are positionedrobustly in both tangible (killing civilians, destroying development infrastruc-tures and damaging basic service facilities) and intangible (collapsing stateinstitutions, mistrusting in government and the destruction of social relation-ships) manners (Abeysekera, 2011). As a means of addressing both types ofimpediments in conflict-affected societies, peacebuilding is a way forwardinventiveness, which fosters reconciliation of the conflicting parties andencourages broader communities to address the conflict agendas throughpeacebuilding lenses. However, many critics assert that the peacebuilding processis only an outside intervention that has abandoned the real interest and influencegroups (Nussbaum & Sen, 1993).

In Nepal, the notion of peacebuilding has resulted in the settling of armedcombat, which was led by Communist Party of Nepal Maoist (CNM-M) from1996 to 2006. The politically based armed battle lasted for 10 years, leading tothe deaths of an estimated 15,000 people and displacing many thousands more(Robins, 2011). In 2006, the violence stopped after the 12 Points PeaceAgreement was signed between the Communist Party of Nepal Maoist and theSeven Party Alliance (SPA). In 2006, a Comprehensive Peace Agreement(CPA) was reached between the government of Nepal and the rebellion party,CPN-M. Since that period, the peace process has been operational in the countryand various actors have been engaged to uphold a sustainable peace in the society(Bhatta, 2012).

Regardless of such enormous initiatives in Nepal, the collapse of the stateinstitutions, social/economic exclusion and the malfunction of governance arefamiliar characterstics of the society and yielded numerous wicked practices.First, a centralized institutional structure and inbuilt decision-making system arestandard arrangements (Winther-Schmidt, 2011). Second, the decision-makingsystem from central to bottom has apparently been influenced by elitist bias inthat it is not prepared to hear public grievances (Khanal, 2006). Third, limitednumbers of people have domination over the resources and opportunities.Fourth, an unholy connection between aid agencies, bureaucracy and politicalleaders has inhibited the deployment of opportunities to the specific target

66 K.K. Acharya

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

groups. These factors have served to intensify the armed conflict, which endedin 2006.

Experiences confirm that the failure of the market mechanism in the late1970s forced the neo-liberal policy to be a prominent discourse in development.It has encouraged pluralism, competition and efficiency. Under these conditions,it has been assumed that access to economic and political opportunities isincreased for all segments of society and that inequality and impartiality indecision-making is reduced. It further explores the effective role of the formaland informal institutions to achieve the strategic goals and operational objectivesthrough structured frameworks, rules, relationships, systems and processes(OMahony & Ferraro, 2007). However, it could not promote the genuineparticipation of communities in the decision-making process (Cheshire, 2000).In Nepal, it was the realization of formal entry into neo-liberalization in the late1980s that offered multiple actors the possibility of engagement in thedevelopment discourse to address institutional crises, poor governing systems,economic vulnerability and ambiguities of service delivery. However, neo-liberalisms denial approach towards rural communities forced not only a crisisof poverty, but also created the gap between rich and poor that has pushedsociety into the gorge of battle. From this perspective, neo-liberalisms preferenceis towards individualism rather than communities welfare which has madecommunities dysfunctional in creating social safety nets (Cheshire & Lawrence,2005).

Although Nepal made efforts at governance at grass-roots level under thePanchayat system in the early 1960s, the Panchayats remained largely extensionsof the central government and were primarily centrally driven with littleemphasis on strengthening local governance. In 1990, democracy was reinstatedin Nepal which was introduced in 1951, and this brought some hope andaspiration to the people for improving the national economy and governmentactions at the macro level, while promoting inclusion of pro-poor people andvarious other excluded or marginalized sections at the micro level. Experiencesindicate that Nepalese communities practise governing systems within theircommunities that encourage the local people to become involved in the devel-opment of community plan formulation, consultation and resource manage-ment. In such a context, community governance bestows power and controlto the communities, so that citizens, governments and non-governments canact together in setting and implementing policies, establishing networkingand linkages and designing roles and responsibilities at the community level(Somerville, 2005). Through these processes, community governance plays anactive role in empowering people, by giving them civic voice, stimulatingdemocracy and improving their efficiency in building strategies to settle theconflict (Taylor, Braveman, & Hammel, 2004).

Nonetheless, the governance system at grass-roots level in Nepal is at risk dueto several reasons. First, the complex social structure and elite domination have

Rural Society 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

led to a low-level public participation. This enables powerful people to benefitfrom monopolization in the power structure. Second, the realization of com-munity governance and its effectiveness are largely denied, as they are eitherbeing misused or manipulated (Kavada, 2010). The major deficiency of thepeacebuilding process in Nepal is guided by the neo-liberal agenda, which notonly inspires the peacebuilding actors to design its modalities based on aderegulation, denationalization and privatization framework, but also restrictsgrass-roots representation in the peacebuilding process. In such a context, thepeacebuilding process in Nepal is inept in achieving substantial success, in spiteof the high priority given to it by the government and funding agencies. Thus,this study examines the contribution of community governance, which is a majorapparatus in strengthening local communities, fostering the peacebuildingprocess and acquiring ownership in peacebuilding activities at the local level, tothe facilitation of the peacebuilding process in Nepal.

Literature review and theoryPost-World War II, many structural and pluralist theories emerged whichhighlighted the state-centric concept that provided more administrative and legis-lative power to the state in controlling the national economy (Pankaj, 2007).However, many limitations came into existence in the late 1970s that led to afailure of the state-centric structure in Africa, Latin America and some parts ofAsia. Kohli (2004) points out that the neo-patrimonial ties in Africa, clientelisticpatterns in Latin America and the colonial setup in the Asia sector were causes ofthe failure of the state-centric structure. In the 1970s, a common agreement wasmade through neo-liberalization to address state failure and to recover nationaleconomic growth through open markets, deregulation and enhancing the role ofthe private sector (Kotz, 2002). At the same time, the third wave democracybrought new challenges to the existing system through the sources of authority(Huntington, 1991). By the mid-1990s, the cycle was turned back and thiscreated a serious threat to neo-liberalism for its reservation on social justice, socialcohesion and local democracy. This led to large sections of society not only beingstructurally handicapped to work and remain sustained in the competitive labourmarket, but also to the stripping down of public services with the result thatmany societies became split and endangered by the resultant unemployment andsocial exclusion (Campbell, 2001).

Contemporary peacebuilding practices seem to be rooted in the same falseassumptions as neo-liberalization theory (Paris, 2010). In response to thismisapprehension, policymakers, practitioners and scholars have turned towardsgovernance in systems and structures. Some authors contemplate that governanceis the paradigm shift from government to governability (Howlett, Rayner, &Tollefson, 2009; OToole & Burdess, 2004). Governance is an action ofgoverning that relates to power and performance, and rules and responses. It is aself-organizing, self-motivating and self-regulating process of state and non-state

68 K.K. Acharya

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

organizations that the society and state have exercised to manage efficient publicservices, an independent judicial system, accountable administration and publicfunds and a pluralistic institutional structure (Rhodes, 1996).

Nevertheless, the government, non-government bodies and donors in Nepalare reluctant to endorse governance in their actions and approaches (Dahal,2012). A trend of governance becoming weaker confirms that, in 2011, Nepalsrank on corruption was 154th among 182 nations, whereas it was in the 146thposition among 178 nations in 2010. A Washington-based institution, Fund forPeace, analysed the index of Failed States of 177 countries around the worldand noted that Nepals rank remained 25th in 2009 and 26th in 2010 (Graner,2001). In contrast, the Nepal Human Development Report 2009 shows theHuman Development Index (HDI) was 0.534 in 2007/08, 0.509 in 2006 and0.471 in 2001 (UNDP/N, 2009). These indicate that governance is in avulnerable position with weak institutions and procedures, lack of ownership indevelopment programmes, mismanagement of resources and failure to deliver aneffective public service system. Experience points out that a number of factors areresponsible for the weakening of governance. First, there is the hierarchical powerstructure which is secured by the feudal elites. Second, the inappropriatedevelopment models that concentrate on allocating more resources for politicallybeneficial development projects ignore local agendas and the social context.Third, an imposed policy intervention in development discourse disregards indi-genous knowledge (Metz, 1995). Additionally, Nepalese society is characterizedby a feudal system, ethnic diversification and complex power structures (Dahal,2012). Such structural constraints have fertilized political and social oppressionsand bureaucratic dishonesty.

In the Panchayat period, a common ideology for national unity and nationalintegration was fleshed out, with distinctive national characteristics such as theNepali language, culture and costume, the acceptance of Hinduism as thenational religion and King being the symbol of unity. Principally, this ideologysuppressed and excluded the people; those who were disadvantaged socially,economically and geographically. However, efforts were made to abolish feelingsof suppression and exclusion as the government formulated a legal document,Muluki Ain, in 1963. Nevertheless, weak implementation of legal actions,government dishonesty and the Panchayati elites domination of the politicalsystem led to its ineffectiveness.

Although the restoration of democracy in 1990 brought some hope andaspiration to the people, the national economy and government actions largelyfailed to fulfil the peoples expectations owing to the chaotic patterns of politicalinstability, lapses in governance and unequal resource distribution (Kumar,2005). Experience confirms that when CPN-M was capitalized and articulatedthe existing muddled political and economic context it began to oppose thesystem through a 40-points demand to the government. Later, CPN-Mdeclared a Peoples War on the foundation of this 40-points demand.

Rural Society 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

However, the central demand of CPN-M was replacement of the monarchy witha secular republic and ethnic autonomy. In this context, the Peoples War wasdeclared in 1996 and ended in 2006, disrupting communities social capital andleading to the collapse of the development process at grass-roots level(Upadhayaya, Mller-Bker, & Sharma, 2011).

Communities can acquire confidence under a community governance systemthrough engaging members, measuring results and achieving results of acts. Thisconstitutes a community governing system which helps communities to makecritical decisions and facilitate them to address the peace process from the bottom(Gaynor, 2013). Some authors believe that it is a new intervention of the latetwentieth century (Armstrong, Francis, & Totikidis, 2005) which encouragesthe devolution of centralized power and authority to the local level and theempowerment of local communities to mitigate local disputes and scarcity (Avis,2009). It symbolizes a number of normative values, such as a network-basedcollaboration and coordination in a complex society, self-government, publicinvolvement and democratic innovation (Stoker, 1998).

Blair (2000) suggests that community governance creates an environment tovoluntarily involve ethnic minority groups, such as women, the poor and themarginal farmers, in many ways. First, the poor are encouraged to build theirown organizations and seek support from the state and broader civil society.Once established, such organizations can influence the local and central govern-ment, private sector, civil societies and NGOs. Second, it ensures an effectiveservice delivery in a participative and collaborative manner (Gaventa, 2004).OToole (2006) argues that an institutional vacuum may already exist in thecommunity and therefore local residents, through community associations, mayparticipate in community governance activities and thus have the potentialto create a more enhanced form of community governance. In the late 1980s,community governance emerged as a communitarian movement that empha-sized the pluralism of power distribution within local communities and thepower of association with the civil space in market-based societies (Turner,2012). Many community-based organizations (CBOs) are now emerging. Thesefocus on inclusive decision-making systems, adequate bargaining power, eco-nomic and social security and community empowerment (Opare, 2007).

CBOs hold great promise as potential partners in the peacebuilding process.They are the most genuine and viable organizations and possess great knowledgeand a wealth of experience, especially in working through governance issues atgrass-roots level. The development of CBOs at grass-roots level equips the localself-governing system, which can be described as community governance, withan approach that makes a shift from the notion of government to governance(OToole & Burdess, 2004). A flexible approach, which extends beyond govern-ment, is imperative for effective and equity-based resource distribution at thecommunity level. First, it plays a significant role in addressing inequality, isolationand poverty (Chaskin, 2001). Second, it fosters awareness creation, democratic

70 K.K. Acharya

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

exercise, community building, advocacy and coordination, linkage and network-ing development. Third, it facilitates the mobilization of local resources(Chapagain & Banjade, 2009) while fourth, it provides voice to the voicelessand clout to the powerless. Finally, it strengthens the structure of accountabilityand promotes decentralization (Acharya, 2010).

In Nepal, the emergence of community-based organizations, as key actors inservice delivery at grass-roots level, plays a significant role in overcoming povertyand disadvantage, knitting society together and deepening democracy. Initially, thefunctions of these grass-roots champions, such as Guthis, Rodis, Bhejas and BhajansKirtan groups amongst others, undertook social and economic activities at grass-roots level (Bhattachan, 2002). However, a formalization process of CBO activityin Nepal was instituted early in the 1950s through the Tribhuvan Gram VikasProject which aimed to improve rural livelihoods (Shrestha, 2004). By the early1970s, the numbers of CBOs had grown, and donors began emphasizing theCBOs role in development (Dhakal, 2007). The Small Farmers DevelopmentProgram (SFDP), Productive Loan Development Program (PLDP) and otherregional relevant programmes were implemented as key CBO-led initiatives inNepal with external support. Under this framework, a community governancesystem has been gaining popularity within the public and community discourses,which enables the community actors to achieve the strategic goals and operationalobjectives through structured frameworks and procedures within society.

The formal realization of a community-based governance system in Nepalwas made after formulation of the Forestry Sector Master Plan in 1989 (Kanel &Dahal, 2008). This widely encouraged the communities to participate indecision-making, including the management of local forest resources. In such acontext, community governance encourages local actors, mainly communitiesand their organizations, to perform their roles effectively, enhance internal andexternal capacity and develop collaboration to improve service qualities. Inaddition, the mantra of Self-reliance for Rural Development emerged in the1980s to make grass-roots communities independent and capable of managingtheir livelihood systems. This motivated locally constituted CBOs which hadbeen operating in different and varying public concerns, ranging from economicand educational to cultural development. Additionally, community-based socialmobilization, through savings and credit functions, was promoted by local andinternational NGOs. This concept has brought actors more closely together todetermine their needs and demands locally. In such a setting, various CBOs havereceived greater autonomy through the Forestry Master Plan 1989, the SocialWelfare Act 1992, the Cooperative Act 1992 and the Local Self-Governance Act1999. These have encouraged the local communities to organize, mobilize andsystematize the local level planning, implementing, monitoring and coordinationsystems through providing roles, responsibilities and powers that reinforce thepeacebuilding process at the community level.

Rural Society 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

Community-based institutions in Nepal, however, are overlooked by thepolitical power structure and bureau pathology. This arguably places them insetback and paralysis, such that all CBOs are not strong enough to institute thegovernance system intensively in their decisions and actions. Nevertheless, themajority of CBOs have strong institutional, human and material capacity to helpcarry out their envisioned activities. Their high capability for community-basedservice delivery during the civil war was very effective and their governance wasmuchmore appreciated by international aid agencies (UNDP/N, 2009). So far, theappreciation of community governance and community-based power structures atthe highest levels has served to assist the peacebuilding process and remove social,political and economic barriers. In Nepal, there are more than 396,466 communitygroups that have contributed to maintaining social harmony, indigenous demo-cracy and community governance at grass-roots level. This indicates grass-rootsgovernance is highly inspiring and strengthens the local democracy. It empowersthe community, citizens, government and private organizations to participate inthe governance process (Biggs, Gurung, & Messerschmidt, 2004).

Research methodsThe Tawa Khola watershed of Nepal was chosen for the study area because itexhibits the necessary levels of rural endemic poverty and long-term margin-alization or exclusion from the basic service structures or mechanisms. Theselected Village Development Committees (VDCs) are located in the mostremote and poverty-stricken pockets of Nepal, farthest from the districtheadquarters and major urban centres. The national poverty profile of Nepalreveals that poor households (HHs) in the study area constituted 60.80% of thepopulation (WFP/N, 2006). Similarly, HHs having access to safe drinking waterand sanitation facilities constituted 33.52% and 43.60% respectively (Water-Aid, 2012).

For the sample, 26 groups were chosen intentionally from three broad CBOcategories. They were: nine from the Community Forestry User Groups (CFUGs);10 from the Community Development Organization Groups (CDGOs); andseven from theWomen Development Groups (WDGs). The CFUGs were directlyinvolved in natural resource management activities as per government regulationswhile the CDGOs conducted social, economic and infrastructural developmentactivities at grass-roots level, supported by local government and other develop-ment partners. WDGs ensured womens participation and gender inclusion inlocal development activities at grass-roots level. Overall, the aim of these groupswas to promote community governance to facilitate the peacebuilding process.

A mixed-method approach was adopted that triangulated both quantitativeand qualitative techniques for data collection, analysis and presentation. Ninedifferent parameters with 95 indicators were designed by employing aparticipatory consensus in group meetings of CBOs. Experience indicates thatsuch parameters are functional activities of the CBO groups, which were

72 K.K. Acharya

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

developed under the criterion of governance at grass-roots level. Both secondaryand primary data were collected. Whereas 26 organisational surveys and threefocus group discussions (FGDs) were administered for the primary data collec-tion, institutional records, such as government policies, government Acts, opera-tional plans and minutes of group meetings, were collected for the secondarydata. Research ethics standards, as set out in the guidelines for Human ResearchEthics at the University of New England, Australia applied to the processing ofthe primary data collection. The researcher gained approval for all components ofthe research, the organizational survey and FGDs.

For the FGDs, three scheduled discussions were employed. The participantswere chairpersons and secretaries of organizations concerned with the governancepattern, public access to basic services and peacebuilding process. Each FGDlasted approximately 90 minutes. Proceedings were recorded electronically andlater transcribed. An organizational survey was conducted by employing asimple random sampling method in which data was collected during the periodof scheduled group meetings. A close-ended structure with multiple choicequestionnaires was employed for data collection using 95 indicators with responseoptions Yes and No, where Yes denoted the activities completed and Nootherwise. Responses were weighted by assigning 1 for completed activities and0 for otherwise.

For the data analysis, both quantitative and qualitative techniques wereapplied. Initially, a composite index technique was employed to analyse thequantitative data. The composite index technique is a scaling method thatmeasures responses with respect to quantitative attributes or traits. For example,a scaling technique might involve estimating an individual level of extraversion,or the perceived quality of products. A grouping of indices or other factorscombined in a standardized way provides a useful statistical measure of overallmarket or sector performance over time (Foa & Tanner, 2011). The followingcomposite index technique (CIT) (Booysen, 2002; Haase et al., 2014) wasadministered to analyse the quantitative data:

Cj XX

Wi=nI

Cj = Composite Index Technique of activities, weight given to individual institutionsas per the performing activitiesWi = 1 and 0 (1 = activities performed, 0 = not performed)n = Number of organizations under the particular categoriesI = Number of indicators taken under each category of broad functional groups.

This method assists to measure and compare the organizations contribution andperformance in the different service activities. Based on composite index values,the CBOs contribution was categorized into four classes, as follows: efficient =above 0.75; moderate = 0.500.75; weak = 0.250.50; and very weak = less than

Rural Society 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

0.25. Composite indices had a numerical value, which ranged between 1 and 0,where 1 was the best condition and 0 was the worst. Later, the quantitative resultwas triangulated by employing qualitative data analysis.

FindingsCBOs involvement in the practice of community governance is an augmentationof the peacebuilding process at grass-roots level. Their engagement at thecommunity level has brought many changes to social transformation, economicand livelihood systems, behavioural change and political participation. CBOscontribution to the peace process started with the identification of needs-basedprogrammes, the formulation of proper planning, utilizing resources, implement-ing projects and ensuring inclusive social participation, all of which filled thegaps in resources, skills, knowledge and basic services at grass-roots level. Inaddition, the CBOs contribution strengthened local democracy, linkages andnetworking development. This ensured social justice and inclusive participationthrough community governance in the conflict-affected areas.

Empirical findings indicate that the CBOs contribution to the peacebuildingprocess at grass-roots level through community governance was in the moderateto efficient categories (CI = 0.71). In the functional activities, CBOs efficientlycontributed to the empowerment process (CI = 0.81), social capital develop-ment (CI = 0.81), institution building (CI = 0.78) and participatory planningand implementation activities (CI = 0.76). The remaining activities resultedin moderate to efficient ratings. Figure 1 depicts the CBOs contribution to the

Figure 1. CBOs functional contribution in community governance.

74 K.K. Acharya

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

peace process through community governance. To strengthen the communitygovernance and capacity enhancement of communities, the government hadlaunched the Integrated Rural Development Programs (IRDPs) during the1970s. This programme focused on the partnership concept between govern-ment and local communities to deliver basic services at grass-roots level. In thissense, the Forestry Sector Master Plan, designed in 1989, endowed autonomy tothe community in managing and utilizing the local forest resources. Thisprovided a sense of confidence and independence to the communities inmobilizing local resources at grass-roots level for different community-basedinfrastructure, social awareness and income-generating initiatives. These roleshelped to address inequality, isolation and poverty. The construction of schooland community buildings and small bridges, the establishment of informalliteracy programmes for women and the poor, the provision of educationscholarships for the children of poor and marginal families and the funding forcommunity schools, in addition to other emergency actions, contributed to thequick recovery of conflict-prone areas.

Similarly, CBOs efficiency (CI = 0.81) in social capital developmentactivities shows that many CBO groups created new social forums for publicgatherings that helped the people to share their views, interact with differentstakeholders including marginal communities, identify need-based publicdemands and review their past experiences. This contributed to the maintenanceof equilibrium in the communities by easing the social tensions through cross-cultural understanding, mutual respect, iteratively renegotiating and maintaininga level of balance in the power relations, resources, functioning and capacitiesbetween potentially conflicting groups or cultural distinctions. These fostered agreater range of awareness, promoted democratic and governance practice andenabled strong advocacy and coordination. A CFUG participants commentshows how CBOs activities have resulted in increasing social capital andinclusive participation:

Our engagement not only aims to exploit the local resources, but also actively contributesto develop social harmony among the communities and creates an enabling environmentto the poor and marginal groups for participating in the decision-making process.

In addition, the CBOs contributed to the development of strong institutionalmechanisms that created social awareness of gender balance, social equity andsocial tradition that then enabled them to express their opinions and put pressureon the development agencies for the effective implementation, management andsustainability of services. Correspondingly, most CBO groups practices showthat they developed a systematic organizational culture for institution buildingwhich included: regular group meetings; developing collective agendas andarticulating systematic discussion and a participatory decision-making system;effective information and communication flow; interpersonal cooperation; anddocumentation of agendas of all activities that increased the ownership by the

Rural Society 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

people of the group activities. Apart from these, many groups developed acommon approach, including the three basic components of social mobilization,namely: organization, saving and skill, which reinforced the development ofself-reliance; economic and social independence; and confidence. The tangibleand effective functions of the communities and their institutions were apparentduring the period of conflict:

When Kriparam joined the police department, his family received many threatsincluding the death penalty and abduction by Maoist rebels. Due to his low economicposition and lack of other alternative income sources, he was not ready to quit his job.On 3 September 2003, he was abducted; however, due to the intensive effort of thelocally constituted CBO groups, he was released on 8 September without theconditional demand to resign from his job.

While the practice of participatory planning and the implementation activities ofthe CBOs were in the weak to moderate (CI = 0.76) range, it contributed to areduction in the overlapping and parallel activities of the development agencies,minimizing the duplication of resources and programmes and streamlining local-level planning according to community concerns. This process not onlycontributed to improving the resource allocation and service delivery system,but also institutionalized the bottom-up approach by bringing people in thedecision-making process closer. As such practices attest, CBO facilitation inmobilizing local resources was prominent:

We have formulated annual plans and programmes in close consultation with CBOgroups, employing participatory approaches. When we forwarded plans and programmesfor approval, its often tragic. The forms of the plans and programmes are changed.Many community needs-based projects were replaced by window projects. In thissituation, CBOs advocacy and lobbying are extremely worthwhile in taking a standagainst this manipulation.

CBOs contribution to community governance in some functions was weak tomoderate. Table 1 shows the community development and resource manage-ment activities (CI = 0.69); inclusive decision-making and downward account-ability process (CI = 0.69); local democratic practice (CI = 0.68); transparencyand accountability system (CI = 0.66); and network and linkage (CI = 0.55)were in the moderate range. Although such functional indices show that CBOscompetencies in these activities were minimal, the institutionalization processindicates that they focused on, as previously mentioned, giving voice to thevoiceless, giving clout to the powerless and that they strengthened the structureof accountability and decentralization. For example, the CBOs democraticsystem enhanced communities managerial and leadership capacity, empoweredbargaining and determined competencies, which gradually replaced the com-munity power structures and monopoly of the local elites. These led toreciprocity and more public trust in CBOs, and new networks with different

76 K.K. Acharya

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

stakeholders emerged. Further, these outcomes continued to transform thepatron-client relationships from the individual to the community, and up-downaccountability. Through this process, the voices of communities began to beheard at the policymaking level so that policymakers were obligated to formulatecommunity-friendly policies and strategies. Likewise, they advanced theempowerment framework, mainly for women and marginal communities, byfocusing on five levels of equality such as welfare, access, conscientization,participation and control. One participant expressed his view about the CBOsengagement in community development activities:

All people of this community are Dalits (marginal). We are illiterate and lackaware[ness] about our positions and rights. In the past, we did not have resources,ideas, and connections to receive the basic services and uphold citizen rights. We weremobilized by peripheral elites, who came to us only for their business, and mobilized totheir benefit. However, the reality has been changed now days. Sanstha le garda Gaunma Vikas Ayo, Janta Le Kam Payo (Due to CBOs, development comes to the villageand the people have received the work).

The information further shows many CBO groups created an enablingenvironment through inclusive policies, which were legitimized by stateregulations. In the community development activities, equal participation ofmales and females and disadvantaged communities in the planning and projectselection process, resource allocation, benefit sharing and other types of decision-making processes were very encouraging. In this system, the inter-sectorialconnections of services were highly effective. Many cases were found wherepeoples participation ensured that the services reached the needy, and where

Table 1. CBOs functional contribution in community governance for peace-building.

Functional ActivitiesCFUGs(n = 9)

CODGs(n = 10)

WDGOs(n = 7) Average

Institution-building activities 0.87 0.77 0.71 0.78Community development and resourcemanagement

0.74 0.69 0.65 0.69

Inclusive decision-making and downwardaccountability

0.62 0.76 0.68 0.69

Social capital development 0.84 0.81 0.77 0.81Local democratic practice 0.59 0.76 0.68 0.68Participatory planning and implementation 0.81 0.74 0.72 0.76Community empowerment 0.74 0.82 0.88 0.81Transparency and accountability 0.63 0.74 0.61 0.66Network and linkage 0.56 0.57 0.52 0.55Average 0.71 0.74 0.69 0.71

Note: efficient = above 0.75; moderate = 0.500.75; weak = 0.250.50; and very weak = less than 0.25.Source: Field survey of Tawa Khola micro watershed (2012).

Rural Society 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

downward accountability was practised, so unnecessary complexities, and the riskof corruption and elite capture, were diminished.

Many arguments support the contention that these actions were guided bytwo different approaches: the transactional approach and the transformationalapproach. The transactional approach focused on the economic dimensions ofempowerment and service delivery, mainly of assets and services. Thetransformational approach was more participatory and contributed to empower-ing members to raise their voices, claim assets and services and have an influenceon the decisions, procedures and the formal and informal rules of the game.

Further examples point out that many CBOs were involved in strengtheningleadership of school management committees, water and sanitation committeesand other groups, and in a voice-raising mechanism in decision-making andresource management. Finally, these practices institutionalized transparency,accountability and community governance. In this regard, some groups adopteda number of best practices, such as a social accountability system; a public andsocial audit system; regular group and assembly meetings; preparation of workingguidelines; publicized annual programmes, budgets and expenses through media(FM Radio); establishment of hoarding boards at each project site; establishmentof monitoring committees to check for irregularities; formation of socialintelligence groups; preparation of citizen charters; citizen report cards; and aparticipatory evaluation process. These actions provided people with a socialplatform to resolve inter-community disputes. It also inspired the voicelesspeople to present their grievances and difficulties. The following comment of aparticipant expresses the importance of a social intelligence system:

In order to pay greater attention to community services, we have formed a SamudaikSarokar Samiti (community surveillance system) to investigate the realities of publicservices misuse and circulate information to the people and encourage them [to take]necessary actions.

Examples show that CBO groups developed networks and linkages withdevelopment partners such as sectoral agencies, local government, donoragencies, NGOs, civil society organizations and the private sector. Throughthis linkage, CBOs had received significant hardware and software assistance tofacilitate the local communities in the absence of local government. This createda platform for negotiation and deliberation of the democratic culture in thecommunities. However, many observations and findings show that communitygovernance has yet to be accomplished in a harmonious way.

Discussion and conclusionsIn Nepal, the condition of no-war-no-peace has prevailed in the country since2006. In order to institutionalize the peacebuilding process and link it with theself-governance system, a number of initiatives and reforms have commenced.The interim constitution of 2007 is a major benchmark to institutionalize the

78 K.K. Acharya

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

peace process in Nepal. It ensures the state shall have the responsibility to adoptfundamental human rights, multi-party democracy, sovereign authority, suprem-acy of the people, rule of law, social justice and equality, an independentjudiciary and transparency and accountability in the activities of the political andbureaucratic system, together with peoples participation in the state mechanism.In addition to the constitutional mechanism, a number of policy reforms, such asdevolution as a form of hybrid decentralization, inclusiveness, pro-poor agendas,equality and rights-based policies and governance reform have created a widespace for the peacebuilding process.

However, the impact of the decade-long civil war has been deeply entrenchedat grass-roots level, and this has gravely affected the socio-economic structure. Atthis level, the CPN-M was established in many Aadhar Ilakas (base camps) andJana Sattas (Peoples regime), and these forced people to live in tragic conditions.Peoples mobility, livelihood activities, social interactions and ideologies wereunder the control of rebellions. At this level, the common people, grass-rootsleaders, peoples institutions, local government, extension service organizationsand rural elites were all highly suppressed, oppressed and depressed.

In 2006, an extensive effort was made to extinguish the civil war by variousindividuals, politicians, civil society activists, statespersons and internationalpanels. Through their efforts, peace initiatives were underway through the reformof political, economic and legal agendas. A common consensus was developed toabolish the monarchical system and conduct an election of a constitutionalassembly for the promulgation of an inclusive constitution. However, thepeacebuilding process could not reach its endpoint and the socio-economicstructure of the country was not transformed from conventional bureaucratiza-tion to inclusiveness. These prime reasons led to institutional failure andineffective peacebuilding agendas.

The major flaw in the existing approach of peacebuilding in Nepal is guidedby a neo-liberal agenda which focuses only on macro-level political issues that areprescribed by international agencies as the process of market democracy(Ahearme, 2009). In addition, these agendas constitute top-down socialengineering and strengthen the conditions of a foreign presence (Miklian, Lidn,& Kols, 2011). Experience indicates that the lack of a big gap in identifying theroot cause of the conflict and a weak methodology were the critical challenges ofthe peacebuilding process. In Nepal, the modality used for the peacebuildingprocess was the blanket approach, which completely failed to address the agendasof peace at the bottom level. The interests of public involvement and solidaritieswere varied from the central to the local levels.

In response, policymakers, practitioners and scholars have turned away fromgeneral templates of liberal peacebuilding and have replaced it with the idea ofsupporting local actors and structures through community governance. This is avital element which not only fosters the peacebuilding process, but also createsa safety net for sustainable rural livelihoods at grass-roots level. Experience

Rural Society 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

determines the number of community safety nets, such as the empowerment andinvolvement of community to harness local resources such as local forests, waterresources and land management; the establishment of a strong collaborationbetween public and private agencies in service-delivery mechanisms; andcommunication with and education of communities under the governanceframework. In Nepal, more than 300,000 community-based organizations andsimilar numbers of NGOs (Biggs et al., 2004) have played a catalytic role inaccommodating multiple development interests and providing a forum for thediscussion of grass-root concerns.

Nevertheless, the current mechanism to operate community governance isfacing serious challenges in its implementation. It suffers from gaps in credibilityand a lack of commitment from politicians, bureaucrats and aid agencies. In Nepal,the triangular effect of exclusion and poor governance has contributed to fragility,inaccessibility and marginality in the local power structure, causing it to lag behindin the communities. More importantly, because of the absence of local bodies overthe past 12 years, state machinery has been unable to resolve the peacebuildingagendas and has failed to achieve socio-economic development, security andjustice. In this context, the practice of community governance brought locallyconstituted organizations, state and other non-state actors into the main frame ofpeacebuilding. Supposedly, this ensured local ownership and participation in thepeacebuilding process, which resolved the lack of efficiency of top-downapproaches and sought essential legitimacy, efficiency and accountability.

Community governance in the peacebuilding process focuses on the role andaccountability of communities in increasing public confidence, settling internaldisputes and creating an enabling environment. Unless the role of communitieshas been ensured, the possibilities of inclusive peacebuilding, social justice andequal opportunities are difficult to achieve. In Nepal, the significance ofcommunity governance for peacebuilding materializes in many ways. First, itplays a significant role in addressing inequality, isolation and poverty. Second, itscontinual practice at grass-roots level fosters awareness creation, democraticexercise, institution building, advocacy, coordination, linkage and networkingdevelopment. Third, it inspires local partners to create an enabling environmentfor mobilizing local resources. Fourth, it imparts voice to the voiceless andgives clout to the powerless. Finally, it strengthens the structure of accountabilityand contributes to peacebuilding. By virtue of being closest to the citizens, CBOsare better positioned to match supply of a given service to the citizens demands,transforming citizens from service recipients to clients, and ensuring citizensgreater accountability for service quality. However, some CBOs are too fragile toplay a major role in meeting communities demands, ensuring social empower-ment and economic improvement. The peacebuilding process is designed underthe neo-liberal agenda, which necessarily excludes the communities interests andputs them in an unsafe position. This study has identified two factors, internaland external, that highlight the existing threats and challenges in Nepal.

80 K.K. Acharya

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

Considering grass-root experiences, this study suggests that internal factors whichare considered to be major components of community governance cannot beeliminated unless greater initiatives of peacebuilding have been instigated at thenational level.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank A/Prof Habib Zafarullah and Professor John Scott, University ofNew England; Dr Andrea Crampton, Associate Editor, Journal of Rural Society; and theanonymous reviewers, for their highly valuable input on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Abeysekera, I. (2011). Civil war, stock return, and intellectual capital disclosure inSri Lanka. Advances in Accounting, 27, 331337. doi:10.1016/j.adiac.2011.08.005

Acharya, K. K. (2010). Institutional capability assessment. Saarbrucken: LambertAcademic.

Ahearme, J. (2009). Neoliberal economic policies and post-conflict peace-building: Ahelp or hindrance to durable peace? Polis Journal, 2, 144.

Armstrong, A., Francis, R., & Totikidis, V. (2004, November). Managing communitygovernance: Determinants and inhibiters. Paper presented at the GovNet Conference,645 Monash University, Melbourne, VIC.

Avis, J. (2009). Further education in England: The new localism, systems theory andgovernance. Journal of Education Policy, 24, 633648. doi:10.1080/02680930903125137

Bhatta, C. D. (2012). Reflections on Nepals peace process. Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung,Department for Asia and the Pacific, International Policy Analysis.

Bhattachan, K. B. (2002, April). Traditional local governance in Nepal. National Seminaron Strengthening Decentralization and Good Governance in Nepal, Political ScienceAssociation of Nepal, Kathmandu.

Biggs, S. D., Gurung, S. M., & Messerschmidt, D. (2004). An exploratory study ofgender, social inclusion and empowerment through development groups and group-basedorganisations in Nepal: Building on the positive. A Report to the Gender and SocialExclusion Assessment Study (Vol. 2, pp. 1130). Kathmandu: National PlanningCommission, The World Bank and DFID.

Blair, H. (2000). Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic localgovernance in six countries. World Development, 28(1), 2139. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00109-6

Booysen, F. (2002). An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development.Social Indicators Research, 59(2), 115151. doi:10.1023/A:1016275505152

Campbell, D. (2001). Can the digital divide be contained? International Labour Review,140(2), 119141. doi:10.1111/j.1564-913X.2001.tb00217.x

Chapagain, N., & Banjade, M. R. (2009). Community forestry as an effective institutionalplatform for local development: Experiences from the Koshi Hills. ForestAction DiscussionPaper (pp. 119). Kathmandu: ForestAction Nepal and LFP.

Chaskin, R. J. (2001). Building community capacity: A definitional framework and casestudies from a comprehensive community initiative.Urban Affairs Review, 36, 291323.doi:10.1177/10780870122184876

Rural Society 81

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2011.08.005http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680930903125137http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680930903125137http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00109-6http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00109-6http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016275505152http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2001.tb00217.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10780870122184876

Cheshire, L. (2000). Contemporary strategies for rural community development inAustralia: A governmentality perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 203215.doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00054-6

Cheshire, L., & Lawrence, G. (2005). Neoliberalism, individualisation and community:Regional restructuring in Australia. Social Identities, 11, 435445. doi:10.1080/13504630500407869

Dahal, D. R. (2012). The paradox of a weak state distributional struggles and socialtransformation in Nepal. Readings on Governance, 14, 1110.

Dhakal, T. N. (2007). Challenges of civil society governance in Nepal. Journal ofAdministration and Governance, 2(1), 6173.

Foa, R., & Tanner, J. C. (2011). Methodology of the indices of social development. Institutefor Social Studies Working Paper Series (www. indsocdev. org), The Hague.

Gaventa, J. (2004). Towards participatory governance: Assessing the transformativepossibilities. In S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds.), Participation: From tyranny totransformation?: Exploring new approaches to participation in development (pp. 2539).London: Zed Books.

Gaynor, N. (2013). Local governance, conflict and peace-building in the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo. Dublin: Policy Report.

Graner, E. (2001). Labor markets and migration in Nepal. Mountain Research and Devel-opment, 21, 253259. doi:10.1659/0276-4741(2001)021[0253:LMAMIN]2.0.CO;2

Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgstrm, S., Breuste, J., Hansen, R. (2014). A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments:Concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio, 43, 413433.

Howlett, M., Rayner, J., & Tollefson, C. (2009). From government to governance inforest planning? Lessons from the case of the British Columbia Great Bear Rainforestinitiative. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 383391. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.01.003

Huntington, S. P. (1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century.Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.

Kanel, K. R., & Dahal, G. R. (2008). Community forestry policy and its economicimplications: An experience from Nepal. International Journal of Social Forestry, 1(1),5060.

Kavada, A. (2010). Email lists and participatory democracy in the European socialforum. Media. Culture & Society, 32, 355372.

Khanal, R. (2006). Local governance in Nepal: Democracy at grassroots (1st ed.). Lalitpur:Smriti Books.

Kohli, A. (2004). State-directed development: Political power and industrialization in theglobal periphery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kotz, D. M. (2002). Globalization and neoliberalism. Rethinking Marxism, 14(2), 6479.doi:10.1080/089356902101242189

Kumar, D. (2005). Proximate causes of conflict in Nepal. Contributions to NepaleseStudies, 32(1), 5192.

Latifi, V. (2011). The preventive diplomacy and the process of the peace-building sincethe end of the Cold War. International Relations, 10, 223235.

Metz, J. J. (1995). Development in Nepal: Investment in the status quo. GeoJournal, 35,175184. doi:10.1007/BF00814063

82 K.K. Acharya

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00054-6http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504630500407869http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504630500407869http://dx.doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2001)021[0253:LMAMIN]2.0.CO;2http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.01.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/089356902101242189http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00814063

Miklian, J., Lidn, K., & Kols, . (2011). The perils of going local: Liberal peace-building agendas in Nepal.Conflict, Security & Development, 11, 285308. doi:10.1080/14678802.2011.593809

Nussbaum, M. C., & Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being: Introduction. In M.Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 18). New York, NY: ClarendonPress.

OMahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007). The emergence of governance in an open sourcecommunity, Academy of Management Journal, 5(50), 10791106.

Opare, S. (2007). Strengthening community-based organizations for the challengesof rural development. Community Development Journal, 42, 251264. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsl002

OToole, K. (2006). Community governance in Rural Victoria: Rethinking grassrootsdemocracy? Rural Society, 16, 303319. doi:10.5172/rsj.351.16.3.303

OToole, K., & Burdess, N. (2004). New community governance in small rural towns:The Australian experience. Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 433443. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2004.01.002

Pankaj, A. K. (2007). Review article: State-led development of developing societies.Journal of Asian and African Studies, 42, 321327. doi:10.1177/0021909607077485

Paris, R. (2010). Saving liberal peacebuilding. Review of International Studies, 36,337365. doi:10.1017/S0260210510000057

Reychler, L. (2006). Challenges of peace research. International Journal of Peace Studies,11(1), 116.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government.Political Studies, 44, 652667. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x

Ricigliano, R. (2003). Networks of effective action: Implementing an integrated approachto peacebuilding. Security Dialogue, 34, 445462. doi:10.1177/0967010603344005

Robins, S. (2011). Towards victim-centred transitional justice: Understanding the needsof families of the disappeared in postconflict Nepal. International Journal ofTransitional Justice, 5(1), 7598. doi:10.1093/ijtj/ijq027

Rondinelli, D. A., & Montgomery, J. D. (2005). Regime change and nation building:Can donors restore governance in postconflict states? Public Administration andDevelopment, 25(1), 1523. doi:10.1002/pad.344

Shrestha, D. M. (2004). Country papers: Nepal. Paper presented at the role of localcommunities and institutions in integrated tural development, 1520 June, AsianProductivity Organization. Iran.

Somerville, P. (2005). Community governance and democracy. Policy and Politics, 33(1),117144. doi:10.1332/0305573052708438

Staub, E. (2012). The psychology of morality in genocide and violent conflict:Perpetrators, passive bystanders, rescuers. In M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), Thesocial psychology of morality (pp. 381398). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation Press.

Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social ScienceJournal, 50(155), 1728. doi:10.1111/1468-2451.00106

Taylor, R. R., Braveman, B., & Hammel, J. (2004). Developing and evaluatingcommunity-based services through participatory action research: Two case examples.The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(1), 7382.

Rural Society 83

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2011.593809http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2011.593809http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsl002http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsl002http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/rsj.351.16.3.303http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2004.01.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2004.01.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021909607077485http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0260210510000057http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0967010603344005http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijq027http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pad.344http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/0305573052708438http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00106

Turner, M. (2012). Decentralization, politics and service delivery. Public ManagementReview, 14, 197215. doi:10.1080/14719037.2012.657960

UNDP/N. (2009). Nepal human development report: State transformation and humandevelopment. Kathmandu: UNDP.

Upadhayaya, P. K., Mller-Bker, U., & Sharma, S. R. (2011). Tourism amidst armedconflict: Consequences, copings, and creativity for peace-building through tourism inNepal. The Journal of Tourism and Peace Research, 1(2), 2240.

WaterAid. (2012). Drinking water and sanitation profile. Kathmandu: Water Aid Nepaland FedaWATSAN.

WFP/N. (2006). Nepal poverty map: Poverty incidence at the Ilaka level. Kathmandu:United Nation, Nepal Informational Platform. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from http://www.un.org.np/sites/default/files/maps/tid_113/Poverty-Map.pdf

Winther-Schmidt, E. (2011). Projects and programmes: A development practitionerscritique of the transition to a sector-wide approach to educational development inNepal. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(1), 5165. doi:10.1080/14767724.2010.513520

84 K.K. Acharya

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

202.

51.7

6.23

8] a

t 22:

16 0

8 Ju

ne 2

015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.657960http://www.un.org.np/sites/default/files/maps/tid_113/Poverty-Map.pdfhttp://www.un.org.np/sites/default/files/maps/tid_113/Poverty-Map.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2010.513520http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2010.513520

AbstractIntroductionLiterature review and theoryResearch methodsFindingsDiscussion and conclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences