CHAPTER TWO: RURAL DEVELOPMENT THEORIES AND CONCEPTS
2.4 RURAL DEVELOPMENT IDEAS: TIMELINE
2.4.5 Phase Five: Participatory Rural Appraisal (1990s →)
68 | P a g e
classified as a “deprived” group – has not been adequately addressed and can be partly attributed to the financialisation of the global economic system. According to Foster (2007), “financialisation” refers to “the shift in the weight of economic activity from production to finance”. An example of the financialisation of the economic system in the context of an environment of peasant households strengthens the huge problematical aspects of the macro economic framework. The fact that the members of a peasant family have limited access to financial capital and are holders of “dead assets”, that are both undervalued and worthless (de Soto, 2000), underlies the enormity of the problem of financialisation on a global scale. Of further concern, according to Mahlat (2011) and IAASTD (2008), are the ever declining and appalling production conditions on small farms in the impoverished rural areas.
The above concerns have led to the promotion of the development of human and physical resources in rural areas. Thus, the fact that local people themselves should be the main implementation agents of development projects needs to be acknowledged. A detailed discussion about this approach is presented next - as Phase Five.
69 | P a g e
monitor and evaluate”. This author (Mahlati, 2011) indicates that any vulnerable person in the community, actually an outsider, acts as a catalyst to facilitate processes within his/her community, which is in turn prepared to improve the situation. The PRA encourages self-reliant development with most of the responsibilities to manage and execute the developmental activities performed by local people. This creates a sense of ownership and enthusiasm among local people and thus the required efficiency needed to achieve the goal also increases. Furthermore, through this approach, local people are encouraged to formulate their own planning goals and have them integrated into the official development plans (Lara et al., 2018). As such, in the case of a specific project, for example, which has been targeted through the PRA, there is the assurance then that the specific project will serve the local people (Mahra et al., 2015). These targets could vary significantly and could include increased incomes;
greater efficiency in the consumption and management of water; a larger supply of cash crops; or an increased supply of timber. The ultimate goal of the PRA, according to Brett (2003), is to promote self-reliant development, with the community readily accepting its accountability in implementing and managing the development activities that it has initiated itself. The PRA can significantly improve the efficiency of development work and minimise any problematic issues in terms of their ownership and activities at the community level (Mustanir and Lewis, 2017). Reddy (2016) is of the opinion that the community can benefit through its involvement in PRA initiatives that are generally orchestrated through NGOs, other organisations, and even the government. In this way, the enthused community can be motivated and mobilised to support a project or programme. Furthermore, when changes are made (e.g., to a more advanced planning system for development), a PRA activity, in demonstrating its effect on structures on the ground, can act as facilitator to help local workers in their understanding of it and thus their commitment to it (Castelli and Bresci, 2017).
One disadvantage associated with the PRA approach involves the contention that if people participate passively in projects, they become inactive and will depend on external inputs. To avoid this situation, local decision-making in project planning and implementation is important. In other words, a project planned and implemented by local people themselves should be given priority, as, in being a local initiative, local materials and human resources would then be used more effectively. Such project
70 | P a g e
outcomes could then enhance local independence and the sustainability of such projects (JICA, 2004).
A further point of criticism of this approach involves the fact that many development projects still follow top-down approaches, where donors continue to dictate the areas of their interests; while projects that do not meet their interests are not supported (Magazi-Rugasira, 1994).
These concerns paved the way for the ‘Community Development Approach’.
According to Swanepoel and De Beer (2011), community development writers have declared for decades that there is a link between community development and poverty reduction. The Modernisation Theory developed in the early 50s saw community development as a means of transforming the impoverished agrarian and traditional nations of the Global South into prosperous liberal democratic societies akin to those of Europe (Midgley and Livermore, 2005). As part of the idea of modernisation, the reasoning behind community development was to improve the economies of the former colonies through the construction of roads and schools, and the provision of water and of community centres (Ruttan, 1975). Community development during this phase was contextualised closely to government or donor-driven approaches and focused on typical government services to modernise society and rural areas (El- Kogali et al., 2016; William and Christopher, 2011).
This shift in developmental thinking focused on people’s needs and allowed community members to make their own decisions, plan, manage and implement community activities. Community-driven development is founded on the idea that the involvement of community members will help in better identifying a community’s needs and in encouraging the more efficient use of existing local resources (El-Kogali et al., 2016). The community development approach strives to enable community members to solve their own problems (William and Christopher, 2011). This view clearly shows that people participation and the development of local leadership are central aspects of the community development process. William and Christopher (2011) further view the concept of community development that can be applied to both rural and urban settings.
71 | P a g e
The approach of community development has several definitions and descriptions that have been put forward. Cornwell (1987) defines it as an approach of practical experience in national development programmes. Frank and Smith (1999) define community development as the “planned evolution of all aspects of community well- being (economic, social, environmental, and cultural)”. These authors (Frank and Smith, 1999) also believe that it is “a process whereby community members come together to act and generate solutions to common problems”.Schuftan (1996) defines community development as comprising four different approaches. The first is service delivery, that seeks to address the causes of inadequate development by providing a structured set of services. Community representatives participate in decision-making concerning the local human resources and service delivery facilties currently available, and in the delivery of these services. The second community development approach is a capacity-building one which raises human capital and empowers participants to resolve the underlying causes of inadequate development. The third approach is advocacy, which entails the dynamic process of developing consensus and a mandate for action. It also brings together like-minded people with common goals. The last approach to community development is social mobilisation. This involves actions that articulate people’s anticipatory needs into actual demands, mobilising people’s needed resources, decentralising decision-making, giving people power over decision-making, and consolidating sustainable social movements.
According to the Combat Poverty Agency (2005), in the context of addressing poverty, rural community development is understood as a developmental activity that works for change in disadvantaged areas with disadvantaged groups. In this view, rural community development is a strategy that mediates between people and poverty. The Combat Poverty Agency (2005) further believes that community development is a multilevel process which includes those who are affected and advocates that they can effectively change themselves.According to Kenny (2011), cited in Mendes and Binns (2012:605), community development refers to “various methods, approaches, and philosophies that underpin a range of activities, and can be practised by various professionals and non-professionals beyond social work practice”. This view implies that community development involves a multi-dimensional approach, and to be effective, it needs dimensional strategies to effect change in poor communities. Craig (1998:2) notes that "community development can be used to solve local problems
72 | P a g e
which are often thought of as an essentially local approach to problem solving".
Mendes and Binns (2013:608) confirm that “community development is known to be a central and necessary strategy for effective practice in the rural context”. Compton and Rooney (2012) concur with the above statement, noting that community development is a practice which assists the process of poor people acting together to improve their shared conditions, both through their own efforts and through negotiation with the public service for support.
Compton and Rooney (2012:9) state that "public service agencies and private agencies seek dialogue and cooperation with users in communities". This means that poor people need each other to push their own developmental endeavours, with limited influence from outside their communities. For instance, the development intended for the rural poor should be conducted in consultation with the community structures and traditional authorities since there are cultural aspects that should be respected and observed. Furthermore, in order for that development to succeed, it should be localised to embrace the socio-economic conditions of the community.
Oakely (1998) agrees by noting that community development as the national rural development strategy sets out to create and maintain the spirit of self-help within the domain of self-reliant development of rural communities. Therefore, community development is regarded as a tool that can be used to create awareness and to increase the potential of those living in rural settings to solve their own problems.