subject: Economic Community Development [print this page] Economic Community Development Economic Community Development
Community development is more effective when it utilizes principles of self-help, felt needs, and participation (Bhattacharyya, 1995). When a community displays higher levels of felt needs, individuals are more likely to think of problems as relevant and a priority for instituting change. However, Stone (1989) points out that different cultures have distinctive views of how principles of self-help, felt needs, and participation are expressed. Her work in Nepal showed that a Western notion of development through self reliance and individualism did not compliment the Nepalese view of physical development and outside participation (Stone, 1989). This notion of cross cultural variability argues for spending time and allocating resources to develop a body of knowledge concerning the problems facing a community before change can be implemented. Community Developers should utilize participatory methods to gain insight into the strengths and weaknesses within a local cultural group or community (Rubin and Rubin, 2008). As noted by Rubin and Rubin (2008), the benefits of utilizing participatory methods in research and programs are that knowledge of problems are linked with actions needed and solutions are generated by community stakeholders who will benefit from change.
There are many different types of participatory approachess that can be utilized to help a community to define their needs. Three methods described in the Participation and Social Assessment Toolkit (1998) were Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), Self Esteem, Associative strength, Resourcefulness, Action planning, responsibility (SARAR), and the Beneficiary Assessment (BA). PRA moves from information sharing, through consultation and collaboration into empowerment with qualitative methods of semi-structured interviews, mapping, and venn diagrams. SARAR empowers stakeholders and community members to be more capable and aware of community problems by using methods of non-serial posters, mapping, pocket charts, three pile sorting, and force-field analysis. BA is the qualitative method of info gathering on beneficiary perceptions toward an activity. Through focus groups, semi-structured interview, and observations, information can be gathered, quantified, and tabulated to show how improvements will be valued by stakeholders (Reitenberg and Narayan, 1998).
Although participatory methods are valuable in mobilizing communities to achieve their goals, they can inadvertently give more power to already empowered community groups. Groups in a community that have more power are more engaged and already have their voice and perspective heard. Some groups have less power because of under representation and exclusion stemming from economic and cultural differences. I experience this in my own Hartford neighborhood, which is made up of affluent condo owners on one side and less affluent Latino residents on the other. In the middle of the neighborhood is a methadone clinic and last year state officials engaged our community group in participatory methods to decide if the clinic should be relocated to encourage development. Unfortunately, our group is mostly made up of those who definitely would like to see the clinic moved. The focus group approach did little to access the opinions and needs of less affluent individuals in the community who might be utilizing the clinic for services. A better approach in avoiding giving affluent and engaged residents more power in this example would have been to conduct focus groups and interviews with Latinos who might be underrepresented in a community group. A variety of participatory methods should be strategically used in a community to develop solutions that are inclusive of all stakeholders regardless of how engaged they are in community activities.
Whenever we speak of participatory approach, it is important to bring up the concept of accountability. Accountability plays a central role in ensuring the maintenance of solid relations between the different stakeholders involved in a development project. There are two types: first is the upward accountability "associated with relationships that face up the aid chain" (from NGO to donor). Second is the downward accountability in contrary "associated with relationships that face down the aid chain" (from NGO to local beneficiaries) (BOND, 2006). We feel like when done right, the participatory approach would be tied to the downward accountability. Making the leaders of the project be accountable to their beneficiaries, would encourage the community members to be involved and committed to its success, and thus its sustainability. On the other hand, if the project defines participatory approach as mainly a top-to-bottom relationship between leaders and beneficiaries, the participation of the locals then becomes limited. As a result, the sustainability of the project becomes at risk. Another issue of the participatory approach is that increasing the participation of the locals could cause deep conflicts within the community when not all groups are represented in the development process. Furthermore, with a large number of participants in the planning process of a project, communication and information sharing could get ambiguous and troublesome (Rogers, 2008).
The first step into evaluation participatory approaches is to evaluate the social and cultural norms of the society. Many staff members from the West determine the best method of creating community participation is by encouraging participants to "take matters in their own hands" and to participate in their own development. There are often gaps in between the ideals and rhetoric of community participation and "the actual practices of so called participatory programs" (Stone, 1989). Those staff members believe egalitarian self reliance is important to the community development project, for without this key ingredient, participants will continually rely on the project with an "antithesis of development" (Stone, 1989). Without self reliance, the participation will depend on those organizers to continually motivate development. However, another person may view development as buildings and other visible structures. Just as in Nepal, the community was surveyed and did not view messages like "bikas," as development (Stone, 1989). Therefore the people may not be motivated to change behaviors or attitudes relating to a project that they do not view as development.
It is vital to the success of a project to help the locals develop a sense of its ownership. When the members of the community are involved in the decision making process, they develop a sense of ownership towards the project at hand (Rogers et. al, 2008). Sustainability depends on the level of ownership that the locals feel they have over the project. "Self reliance" and "taking initiative" are Western cultural values that may not be accepted by all communities. Therefore multiple strategies should be used. Instead of labeling the community as independent from the government and NGOS, label the organizations as dependent on them. Without the participation of the community, the project will not work, thus in reality the institutions are dependent on the community's participation. The expression "build it and they will come" is relevant to participatory approach because people need motivation. As in a watershed project in Nepal, as the project became more realistic, the community increased creative ideas as well (Stone, 1989). A sustained communication effort is a must in the community to involve participation in planning, decision making and implementation of the project. In Nepal, the participatory approach was more familiar to the community as "obey" rather than self rely (Stone, 1989). We believe and agree with Stone that rather than independence, there should be interdependence between the community and outsiders (Stone, 1989).
Participatory approaches certainly do add to sustainable development. While much research can be done online, face to face interviewing still has benefits not provided by web collection. As Rubin and Rubin (2008) point out, "Going door to door to talk with people informally or to survey them on their concerns expands the capacity of the organization by becoming part of recruitment." Activism often follows with those being surveyed wanting to get involved. The depth interview is a participatory approach that stirs feeling which goes a long way in appealing for action or resources. These interviews, like focus group interviewing can bring clarity to initial observations and help those in a community know they are not alone in what they experience or feel. "Depth interviews elicit rich, detailed accounts of events as well as individual feelings, experiences, and perceptions. These individual narratives of suffering become the human face of social problems that must be solved." (Rubin & Rubin, P.159).
Stone (1989), in her caution of not forcing ownership and independence when capacity building cultural environment is not in line with this, shares how participatory approached can foster "interdependence between villagers and their government development agencies and institutions, or between villagers and outsiders." The participatory approach thus teaches participants and outsiders, whether government agencies or international NGO's, to better understand, relate, and help one another. Participatory approaches could give also give more power to powerful groups if left unchecked. Power is neither inherently good or bad. Power is the ability to act and accomplish what you want. Getting things done in the world takes power. This is the basic law of physics ( Brown, 2006). The tools and techniques that could be used in preventing powerful groups from having more powers are; first, employing democratic principles in all decision making that will give equal power to all those involved. Second, information sharing is absolutely important in preventing powerful groups from having more power. Good information is a source of power to everyone because it prevents powerful groups from manipulating issues and the people.
Third, power can come from money. Money can buy relief from many problems. Powerful groups can easily buy more power through their money. The technique to avoid is this to organize people to organize money. Even when no one in the group has a lot of money, people can achieve power by pooling their money together ( Brown, P.125). Fourth, participatory approaches would need to develop strong leaders and leadership in different groups. Good leadership develops power. When many groups are strengthened, none becomes too powerful to overshadow others.
References:
BOND (2006) A BOND Approach to Quality in Non-Governmental Organizations: Putting Beneficiaries First.
Participation and social assessment: Tools and techniques. (1998) Compiled by Jennifer Rietbergen -McCracken and Deepa Narayan. Available at http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/impact/resources/toolkit.pdf.
Rogers, P.R., Jalal, K.F., & Boyd, J.A. (2008). An Introduction to Sustainable Development, 228-230.
Brown, M.J. (2006). Building Powerful Community Organizations: A personal Guide to Creating Groups that can Solve Problems and Change the World. Arlington, MA: Long haul press.
Bhattacharyya, J. (1995). Solidarity and agency: Rethinking community development. Human Organization, 54(1).
Stone, L (1989). Cultural Crossroads of Community Participation in Development: A Case from Nepal. Human Organization, 48 (3).
Rietbergen-McCracken, J., Narayan, D. (1998) Participation and social assessment: Tools and techniques. Accessed at http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/impact/resources/toolkit.pdf.
Rubin, H., Rubin, I. (2008). Chapter 9: Learning about Personal Community, Social Needs through Action Research. In, Community Organizing and Development 4th ed. Pearson, United States.
