ABSTRACT
The chapter takes a step back from tools and provides a critical review of various formulations of stakeholder theory, most of which are lacking in analytical flexibility and depth and are expert-based rather than participatory in design. While useful, the site-specific character of stakeholder analysis and involvement also errs on the side of hyperlocality disconnected from broader webs of social life and issues of power. As a result, analyses tend to promote inclusiveness and dialogue without challenging important power imbalances operating at many levels. For participatory stakeholder analysis to reach its full potential, it must pay more than lip service to participation and empowerment goals that cut across levels and boundaries. Other caveats relate to issues of public interest and representation and naïve hopes of absolute transparency. Given these caveats and the many tensions of social history, PAR practitioners should draw a distinction between two forms of stakeholder analysis: an open-door version, inclusive of all the parties involved, and a closed-door version, more tactical and strategic in spirit, better suited to situations of radically divergent interests and struggles for power.
