Can children and young people be empowered in participatory initiatives?: Perspectives from young people's participation in policy formulation and implementation in Ghana Jones Adu-Gyamfi ⁎ Royal Holloway University of London, Department of Social Work, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, England, United Kingdom abstract article info Article history: Received 17 May 2013 Received in revised form 9 August 2013 Accepted 9 August 2013 Available online 17 August 2013 Keywords: Participation Empowerment Ghana Dialogue Recognition Empowering children and young people is often cited as the goal of participation. However projects that seek to empower children and young people show little attempt to define what empowerment means. There is an implied but inadequately explored conceptual link between participation and empowerment. This paper ex- plores the link between participation and empowerment by discussing a research with 15–17 year young people involved in two participatory initiatives in Ghana. The paper discusses the various typologies of children's partic- ipation and the concept of power, and concludes that participation does not lead to empowerment. Therefore the increasing theorisation of children and young people's participation as empowerment is flawed. The paper argues that children and young people's participation should instead be conceptualised as recognition and dialogue. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child grants children and young people the right to have a say in decisions that affect them. Children's participation in decision-making has therefore become a critical theme to many organisations due to the belief that a project be- comes credible if children's views are sought. In the words of Carr (2007 cited in Gunn, 2008:260) participation has become a ‘technology of legitimation’. As noted by UNICEF (2003:3) ‘children have always participated in life: in the home, in school, in work, in communities, and in wars’. So what is different in the current emphasis of children's participation? It is suggested that current participation seeks to empower children (Ackermann, Thomas, Hart, & Newman, 2003; Boyden, 1990). Many authors have advocated that for participation to be effective power imbalances must be addressed. For example, Badham quotes a seminar participant who said ‘participation cannot work until those who hold the power are willing to let it be equally distributed’ (Badham, 2004:145). Similarly, Gunn (2008) argues that the involvement of chil- dren in decision-making implies that the power to take decisions is being shared with them. Also, Reddy and Ratna (2002) argue that for participation to be effective, constructive and positive for children, they need to be empowered (Reddy & Ratna, 2002). As rightly observed by Hill, Davis, Prout, and Tisdall (2004:89) ‘almost all discourse about young people's participation refers back at least implicitly to notions of power; less often, however, does that involve explicit identification, clarification and deconstruction of what is meant by power and how power operates’. This paper outlines the various typologies of children's participation, deconstructs the concept of power, and analyses two participatory ini- tiatives to promote young people's participation in policy formulation and implementation in Ghana. 2. Typologies of participation Typologies have been developed by a number of writers to illustrate the degree of power shared or transferred in participatory processes. Arnstein (1969) observed that ‘since those who have power normally want to hang on to it, historically it has to be wrestled by the powerless rather than proffered by the powerful’ (p.216). She presented a ‘Ladder of citizen participation’ to illustrate the different stages of interaction between the powerful and the powerless. Arnstein's work has been adapted by others to produce a variety of typologies which more specifically applies to children. Hart's (1992) ‘Ladder of Participation’ is most often cited. The ladder has 8 levels ranging from manipulation to children sharing decisions with adults. The different levels are explained below: The first level Manipulation is when children are engaged in issues they have no understanding and thus do not understand their actions. One example is that of pre-school children carrying political placards concerning the impact of social policies on children. The second step on the ladder – Decoration – bears resemblance to manipulation. Hart (1992) gives the example of occasions when children are given Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 1766–1772 ⁎ Tel.: +44 7949809612. E-mail address: jones.adu-gyamfi.2010@live.rhul.ac.uk. 0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.08.003 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth