Talk:Participatory development

Article seems jumbled, especially in the intro paragraphs and the overall structure. The article seems fairly neutral with frequent sources, but I feel like it could flow much better and have better organization. Why doesn't the article include the two different approaches as sub headings, then have the stages nested under that? This would make it much more readable. There is also heavy use of quotations around terms, which I think is unusual and distracts from the content. In addition, there are stages and forms as two sections, then manifestations and implementation. I feel like stages relates to implementation and manifestation to forms. Perhaps combining these could be beneficial to the flow? Finally, the criticisms seem over represented when compared to the benefits. Could more benefits be included to make the article seem balanced?—Vw tyler (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest the article is confused because it's written in business-speak, which is meant to confound and obfuscate. The only reason any development project would involve the local community is to get them onside and avoid later expensive confrontations, while collecting hand outs from government. It's also good PR. It's not the cuddly-feely thing it is made out to be here, it is purely a cost effective strategy for investors. 90% of the article is BS, which ought to be removed, and the criticisms updated to reflect reality. --ZadieTwinge (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Contemporary engagement

Gender equality and equity 110.54.206.22 (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)