# **2. Measuring Empowerment: An Applied Method**

This section first briefly summarizes the overarching study questions, hypotheses, and research design for collecting data on dynamic conflicts and constructing conflict pathways case studies. Then it describes the comparative methodological approach taken in analyzing the conflict pathways case studies in a way that unpacks local level power relationships in each.

The larger study for which this data was collected—the KDP and Community Conflict Negotiation Study—is partly an assessment of the impact of the _Kecamatan_ Development Program (KDP) on communities’ ability to manage local conflict. While KDP was by no means designed as a conflict resolution program, the core question of the study is whether or not KDP builds the conflict management capacity of villagers through unexpected spillovers from the deliberative processes it initiates. Begun in 1998, KDP is a massive community development project, the largest in Southeast Asia, operating in over 28,000 villages (40% of the total) across Indonesia. KDP distributes US$60,000-$110,000 block grants directly to _kecamatan_ (subdistricts) and ultimately to villages for almost anything villagers themselves feel is a development priority, typically small-scale infrastructure, social, and economic activities. We propose that in addition to KDP’s complaints mechanisms, a key process by which KDP aims to alleviate poverty and improve local governance—convening a series of facilitated forums/meetings at the hamlet, village, and _kecamatan_ level to encourage and institutionalize broader community participation in decision-making and priority-setting<sup>31</sup> —might also incrementally shift power relations on local levels.

The study has generated some evidence supporting core hypotheses about these processes: that KDP’s socialization, planning, decision-making and implementation processes both improve the deliberative skills of community groups as well as build trust between these groups by forging associational ties.<sup>32</sup> To test this and other hypotheses about KDP, the research generated over 70 “conflict pathways case studies”, that is, ethnographies of how particular social tensions and incidents of conflict played out in their local context. Researchers wrote these case studies based on over 800 focus group discussions, in-depth interviews, and participant observations that they conducted. This approach permitted researchers to establish ongoing conflicts as the primary unit of analysis to be studied. Thus, each examines how different actors—villagers, facilitators,

> 31 For more details see Guggenheim (forthcoming), KDP National Secretariat (2003), and Barron, Diprose and Woolcock (2005). KDP works as follows: villagers develop proposal suggestions at facilitated meetings at the hamlet level ( _musbangdus_ ) and then take them to a village meeting ( _musbangdes_ ), where the community democratically decides which two proposals are most worthy to be discussed at the _kecamatan_ meeting (MAD – _Musyawarah Antar Desa_ ).  At the _kecamatan_ meeting, delegations (which must consist of at least two women and one man) present their proposals and together decide on which proposals will be funded.  Since KDP purposefully does not fund all proposals this forum produces vigorous negotiations among and between different groups of villagers.  A large network of facilitators help to socialize the program, organize the meetings, link the community with outside assistance if necessary, and ensure project implementation runs smoothly.  In each KDP village two elected village facilitators (FDs) introduce the project to village institutions.  At the sub-district level, one appointed facilitator (FK) focuses on social issues, while the other FK attends to technical matters.  Because FKs have institutional backing but are relatively independent of local power structures, they are well-placed to trouble-shoot and facilitate problems that may arise.  Once the proposals are selected after 6-8 months, each successful village elects an Activities Implementation Team (TPK), and the villages together form a Financial Management Team (UPK) for the entire _kecamatan_ .

> 32 See Barron and Diprose (2004)

7