Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Community development
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== History == Amongst the earliest community development approaches were those developed in Kenya and British East Africa during the 1930s. Community development practitioners have over many years developed a range of approaches for working within local communities and in particular with disadvantaged people. Since the nineteen sixties and seventies through the various anti poverty programmes in both developed and developing countries, community development practitioners have been influenced by structural analyses as to the causes of disadvantage and poverty i.e. inequalities in the distribution of wealth, income, land, etc. and especially political power and the need to mobilise people power to affect social change. Thus the influence of such educators as [[Paulo Freire]] and his focus upon this work. Other key people who have influenced this field are [[Saul Alinsky]] ([[Rules for Radicals]]) and [[E. F. Schumacher]] (''[[Small Is Beautiful]]''). There are a number of international organisations that support community development, for example, [[Oxfam]], [[UNICEF]], [[The Hunger Project]] and Freedom from Hunger, run community development programs based upon community development initiatives for relief and prevention of malnutrition. Since 2006 the Dragon Dreaming Project Management techniques have spread to 37 countries and are engaged in an estimated 3,250 projects worldwide. === In the global North === In the 19th century, the work of the Welsh early [[socialist]] thinker [[Robert Owen]] (1771–1851), sought to develop a more perfect community. At [[New Lanark]] and at later communities such as [[Oneida Community|Oneida]] in the USA and the [[New Australia Movement]] in Australia, groups of people came together to create [[utopian]] or [[intentional communities]], with mixed success. Some such communities, formed ''ex nihilo'', contrast the concepts of the development of a community at a later stage. ==== United States ==== In the United States in the 1960s, the term "community development" began to complement and generally replace the idea of [[urban renewal]], which typically focused on physical development projects - often at the expense of [[Working class| working-class]] communities. One of the earliest proponents of the term in the United States was social scientist [[William W. Biddle]] (100-1973).<ref name="in memoriam">{{cite journal|doi= 10.1080/00103829.1973.10877482 | volume=4 | issue=1 | title=In Memoriam: William W. Biddle | year=1973 | journal= Journal of the Community Development Society | page= 5 | last1 = List | first1 = E. Frederick}}</ref> In the late 1960s, philanthropies such as the [[Ford Foundation]] and government officials such as Senator [[Robert F. Kennedy]] took an interest in local nonprofit organizations. A pioneer was the [[Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation]] in Brooklyn, which attempted to apply [[business skills | business]] and [[management skills]] to the social mission of uplifting low-income residents and their neighborhoods. Eventually such groups became known as "[[Community development corporation]]s" or CDCs. Federal laws, beginning with the 1974 [[Housing and Community Development Act of 1974|Housing and Community Development Act]], provided a way for state and municipal governments to channel funds to CDCs and to other [[Non-profit organization |nonprofit organizations]]. National organizations such as the [[Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation]] (founded in 1978 and known since 2005 as [[NeighborWorks America]]), the [[Local Initiatives Support Corporation]] (LISC) (founded in 1980), and the [[Enterprise Foundation]] (founded in 1981) have built extensive networks of affiliated local [[nonprofit]] organizations to which they help provide financing for numerous physical- and [[Social change| social-development]] programs in urban and [[Types of rural communities |rural communities]]. The CDCs and similar organizations have been credited by some with starting the process that stabilized and revived seemingly hopeless [[inner-city]] areas such as [[South Bronx |the South Bronx]] in New York City. ==== United Kingdom ==== In the UK, community development has had two main traditions. The first was as an approach for preparing for the [[decolonisation |independence]] of countries from the former [[British Empire]] in the 1950s and 1960s. Domestically, community development first came into public prominence with the [[Labour Party (UK)| Labour]] Government's anti deprivation programmes of the latter 1960s and 1970s. The main example of this activity, the CDP (Community Development Programme), piloted local area-based community development. This influenced a number of largely urban local authorities, in particular in Scotland with [[Strathclyde]] Region's major community-development programme (the largest at the time in Europe). The [[Gulbenkian Foundation]] was a key funder of commissions and reports which influenced the development of community development in the UK from the latter 1960s to the 1980s. This included recommending that there be a national institute or centre for community development, able to support practice and to advise government and local authorities on policy. This resulted in the forma establishment in 1991 of the Community Development Foundation. In 2004 the [[Carnegie United Kingdom Trust| Carnegie UK Trust]] established a commission of inquiry into the future of rural community development, examining such issues as land reform and climate change. Carnegie funded over sixty rural community-development [[action research | action-research]] projects across the UK and Ireland and national and international communities of practice to exchange experiences. This included the International Association for Community Development (IACD). In 1999 the [[First Blair ministry|Labour Government]] established a UK-wide organisation responsible for setting [[professional training | professional-training]] standards for all education and development practitioners working within local communities. This organisation, PAULO – the National Training Organisation for Community Learning and Development, was named after [[Paulo Freire]] (1921-1997). It was formally recognised by [[David Blunkett]], the [[Secretary of State for Education and Employment]]. Its first chair was Charlie McConnell, the Chief Executive of the [[Scottish Community Education Council]], who had played a lead role in bringing together a range of occupational interests under a single national-training standards body, including [[community education]], community development and development education. The inclusion of community development was significant as it was initially uncertain as to whether it would join the National Training Organisation (NTO) for Social Care. The Community Learning and Development NTO represented all the main employers, trades unions, professional associations and national-development agencies working in this area across the four nations of the UK. The new body used the wording "community learning and development" to acknowledge that all of these occupations worked primarily within local communities, and that this work encompassed not just providing less formal learning support but also a concern for the wider holistic development of those communities – socio-economically, environmentally, culturally and politically. By bringing together these occupational groups this created for the first time a single recognised employment-sector of nearly 300,000 full- and part-time paid staff within the UK, approximately 10% of these staff being full-time. The NTO continued to recognise the range of occupations within it, for example specialists who work primarily with young people, but all agreed that they shared a core set of professional approaches to their work. In 2002 the NTO became part of a wider [[Sector skills council | Sector Skills Council]] for lifelong learning. The UK currently hosts the only global network of practitioners and activists working towards social justice through community development approach, the International Association for Community Development (IACD).<ref name=IACD>{{cite web|title=International Association for Community Development|url= http://www.iacdglobal.org/|access-date=7 July 2014}}</ref> IACD, formed in the USA in 1953, moved to Belgium in 1978 and was restructured and relaunched in Scotland in 1999.<ref name=IACDhistory>{{cite web|title= IACD- a brief history|url=http://www.iacdglobal.org/iacd-brief-history|access-date=7 July 2014|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140714165113/http://www.iacdglobal.org/iacd-brief-history|archive-date=14 July 2014|url-status=dead}}</ref> ==== Canada ==== Community development in Canada has roots in the development of co-operatives, [[credit union]]s and ''caisses populaires''. The [[Antigonish Movement]] which started in the 1920s in [[Nova Scotia]], through the work of Doctor [[Moses Coady]] and Father [[Jimmy Tompkins (priest) |James Tompkins]], has been particularly influential in the subsequent expansion of community economic development work across Canada. ==== Australia ==== Community development in Australia has often focussed on [[Aboriginal Australian]] communities, and during the period of the 1980s to the early 21st century funds channelled through the Community Employment Development Program, where Aboriginal people could be employed in "a work for the dole" scheme, gave the chance for non-government organisations to apply for a full or part-time worker funded by the Department for Social Security. Dr Jim Ife, formerly of [[Curtin University]], organised a ground-breaking text-book on community development.{{cn|date=September 2022}} === In the "Global South" === Community planning techniques drawing on the history of utopian movements became important in the 1920s and 1930s in [[Eastern Africa|East Africa]], where community development proposals were seen as a way of helping local people improve their own lives with indirect assistance from colonial authorities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Anderson|first=David|date=1984|title=Depression, Dust Bowl, Demography, and Drought: The Colonial State and Soil Conservation in East Africa during the 1930s|jstor=722351|journal=African Affairs|volume=83|issue=332|pages=321–343|doi=10.1093/oxfordjournals.afraf.a097622}}</ref> [[Mahatma Gandhi|Mohandas K. Gandhi]] adopted African community development ideals as a basis of his South African Ashram, and then introduced it as a part of the Indian [[Swaraj]] movement, aiming at establishing [[economic interdependence]] at village level throughout India. With [[Partition of India|Indian independence]], despite the continuing work of [[Vinoba Bhave]] in encouraging [[grassroots]] [[land reform]], India under its first Prime Minister [[Jawaharlal Nehru]] adopted a mixed-economy approach, mixing elements of socialism and capitalism. During the fifties and sixties, India ran a massive community development programme with focus on rural development activities through government support. This was later expanded in scope and was called integrated rural development scheme [IRDP]. A large number of initiatives that can come under the community development umbrella have come up in recent years. The main objective of community development in India remains to develop the villages and to help the villagers help themselves to fight against poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition, etc. The beauty of Indian model of community development lies in the homogeneity of villagers and high level of participation. Community development became a part of the [[Arusha Declaration|Ujamaa Villages]] established in [[Tanzania]] by [[Julius Nyerere]], where it had some success in assisting with the delivery of education services throughout rural areas, but has elsewhere met with mixed success. In the 1970s and 1980s, community development became a part of "Integrated Rural Development", a strategy promoted by [[United Nations]] Agencies and [[World Bank Group|the World Bank]]. Central to these policies of community development were: * [[Literacy|Adult literacy]] programs, drawing on the work of Brazilian educator [[Paulo Freire]] and the "[[Each One Teach One]]" adult literacy teaching method conceived by [[Frank Laubach]]. * Youth and women's groups, following the work of the [[Serowe Brigades]] of [[Botswana]], of [https://web.archive.org/web/20091125064832/http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=ERICSearchResult&_urlType=action&newSearch=true&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_1=au&ERICExtSearch_Operator_1=OR&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_1=%22Van+Rensburg+Patrick%22&searchtype=authors%7CMr Patrick van Rensburg]. * Development of [[community business ventures]] and particularly [[cooperatives]], in part drawn on the examples of [[José María Arizmendiarrieta]] and the [[Mondragón Cooperative Corporation|Mondragon Cooperatives]] of the [[Basque Country (autonomous community)|Basque]] region of Spain * [[Compensatory education]] for those missing out in the [[Education|formal education]] system, drawing on the work of [[Open educational resources|Open Education]] as pioneered by [[Michael Young, Baron Young of Dartington|Michael Young]]. * Dissemination of [[Alternative technology|alternative technologies]], based upon the work of [[E. F. Schumacher]] as advocated in his book ''[[Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered]]'' * Village nutrition programs and [[permaculture]] projects, based upon the work of Australians [[Bill Mollison]] and [[David Holmgren]]. * [[water resources|Village water supply]] programs In the 1990s, following critiques of the mixed success of "top down" government programs, and drawing on the work of [[Robert Putnam]], in the rediscovery of [[social capital]], community development internationally became concerned with social capital formation. In particular the outstanding success of the work of [[Muhammad Yunus]] in [[Bangladesh]] with the [[Grameen Bank]] from its inception in 1976, has led to the attempts to spread [[Microcredit|microenterprise credit]] schemes around the world. Yunus saw that social problems like poverty and disease were not being solved by the market system on its own. Thus, he established a banking system which lends to the poor with very little interest, allowing them access to entrepreneurship.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Gebremariam|first=Yilma|date=2010|title=Review of Small Loans, Big Dreams: How the Nobel Prize Winner Muhammad Yunus and Microfinance Are Changing the World|jstor=20642514|journal=Eastern Economic Journal|volume=36|issue=1|pages=142–144|doi=10.1057/eej.2009.19|s2cid=154904885}}</ref> This work was honoured by the 2006 [[Nobel Peace Prize]]. Another alternative to "top down" government programs is the participatory government institution. Participatory governance institutions are organizations which aim to facilitate the participation of citizens within larger decision making and action implementing processes in society. A case study done on municipal councils and social housing programs in Brazil found that the presence of participatory governance institutions supports the implementation of poverty alleviation programs by local governments.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Donaghy|first=Maureen M.|date=2011|title=Do Participatory Governance Institutions Matter? Municipal Councils and Social Housing Programs in Brazil|jstor=23040659|journal=Comparative Politics|volume=44|issue=1|pages=83–102|doi=10.5129/001041510X13815229366606}}</ref> The "[[human scale development]]" work of [[Right Livelihood Award]]-winning Chilean economist [[Manfred Max Neef]] promotes the idea of development based upon fundamental human needs, which are considered to be limited, universal and invariant to all human beings (being a part of our human condition). He considers that [[poverty]] results from the failure to satisfy a particular human need, it is not just an absence of money. Whilst human needs are limited, Max Neef shows that the ways of satisfying human needs is potentially unlimited. Satisfiers also have different characteristics: they can be violators or destroyers, pseudosatisfiers, inhibiting satisfiers, singular satisfiers, or synergic satisfiers. Max-Neef shows that certain satisfiers, promoted as satisfying a particular need, in fact inhibit or destroy the possibility of satisfying other needs: e.g., the [[arms race]], while ostensibly satisfying the need for protection, in fact then destroys subsistence, participation, affection and freedom; [[representative democracy|formal democracy]], which is supposed to meet the need for participation often disempowers and [[social alienation|alienates]]; commercial [[television]], while used to satisfy the need for [[recreation]], interferes with understanding, creativity and identity. [[Synergy|Synergic]] satisfiers, on the other hand, not only satisfy one particular need, but also lead to satisfaction in other areas: some examples are [[breastfeeding]]; self-managed production; [[popular education]]; democratic [[community organization]]s; [[Preventive medicine|preventative medicine]]; meditation; educational games. ==== India ==== Community development in India was initiated by Government of India through Community Development Programme ([[Community development block in India|CDP]]) in 1952. The focus of CDP was on rural communities. But, professionally trained social workers concentrated their practice in urban areas. Thus, although the focus of community organization was rural, the major thrust of Social Work gave an urban character which gave a balance in service for the program.<ref>Siddiqui, H.Y. (1997). Working with communities: An introduction to community work. New Delhi: Hira Publications.</ref> ==== Vietnam ==== International organizations apply the term community in Vietnam to the local administrative unit, each with a traditional identity based on traditional, cultural, and kinship relations.<ref name="Yen 329–340">{{Cite journal|last1=Yen|first1=N. T. K.|last2=Luong|first2=P. Van|date=2008-07-01|title=Participatory village and commune development planning (VDP/CDP) and its contribution to local community development in Vietnam|journal=Community Development Journal|language=en|volume=43|issue=3|pages=329–340|doi=10.1093/cdj/bsn018|issn=0010-3802}}</ref> Community development strategies in Vietnam aim to organize communities in ways that increase their capacities to partner with institutions, the participation of local people, transparency and equality, and unity within local communities.<ref name="Yen 329–340"/> Social and economic development planning (SDEP) in Vietnam uses top-down centralized planning methods and decision-making processes which do not consider local context and local participation. The plans created by SDEP are ineffective and serve mainly for administrative purposes. Local people are not informed of these development plans.<ref name="Yen 329–340"/> The [[participatory rural appraisal]] (PRA) approach, a research methodology that allows local people to share and evaluate their own life conditions, was introduced to Vietnam in the early 1990s to help reform the way that government approaches local communities and development. [[Participatory rural appraisal|PRA]] was used as a tool for mostly outsiders to learn about the local community, which did not effect substantial change.<ref name="academic.oup.com">{{Cite journal|last1=Yen|first1=N. T. K.|last2=Van Luong|first2=P.|date=2008-06-05|title=Participatory village and commune development planning (VDP/CDP) and its contribution to local community development in Vietnam|journal=Community Development Journal|language=en|volume=43|issue=3|pages=329–340|doi=10.1093/cdj/bsn018|issn=0010-3802}}</ref> The village/[[Commune (Vietnam)|commune]] development (VDP/CDP) approach was developed as a more fitting approach than [[Participatory rural appraisal|PRA]] to analyze local context and address the needs of rural communities.<ref name="Yen 329–340"/> VDP/CDP participatory planning is centered around Ho Chi Minh's saying that "People know, people discuss and people supervise."<ref name="academic.oup.com"/> VDP/CDP is often useful in Vietnam for shifting centralized management to more decentralization, helping develop local governance at the grassroots level.<ref name="academic.oup.com"/> Local people use their knowledge to solve local issues.<ref name="academic.oup.com"/> They create mid-term and yearly plans that help improve existing community development plans with the support of government organizations.<ref name="academic.oup.com"/> Although VDP/CDP has been tested in many regions in Vietnam, it has not been fully implemented for a couple reasons.<ref name="academic.oup.com"/> The methods applied in VDP/CDP are human resource and capacity building intensive, especially at the early stages. It also requires the local people to have an "initiative-taking" attitude. People in the remote areas where VDP/CDP has been tested have mostly passive attitudes because they already receive assistance from outsiders.<ref name="academic.oup.com"/> There also are no sufficient monitoring practices to ensure effective plan implementation. Integrating VDP/CDP into the governmental system is difficult because the Communist Party and Central government's policies on decentralization are not enforced in reality.<ref name="academic.oup.com"/> [[Non-governmental organization]]s (NGO) in Vietnam, legalized in 1991, have claimed goals to develop [[civil society]], which was essentially nonexistent prior to the [[Đổi Mới]] economic reforms.<ref name=":052">{{Cite journal|last=Gray|first=Michael|date=October 1999|title=Creating Civil Society? The Emergence of NGOs in Vietnam|url=http://www.michaelgray.ca/writing/articles/VNGO.pdf|journal=Development and Change|via=School of Oriental and African Studies, London|access-date=2018-05-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180507085221/http://www.michaelgray.ca/writing/articles/VNGO.pdf|archive-date=2018-05-07|url-status=dead}}</ref> NGO operations in Vietnam do not exactly live up to their claimed goals to expand civil society.<ref name=":222">{{Cite journal|last=Mercer|first=Clare|date=2002|title=NGOs, civil society and democratization: a critical review of the literature|journal=Progress in Development Studies|volume=2|pages=5–22|doi=10.1191/1464993402ps027ra|s2cid=154384357}}</ref><ref name=":052" /> This is mainly due to the fact that NGOs in Vietnam are mostly donor-driven, urban, and elite-based organizations that employ staff with ties to the Communist Party and Central government.<ref name=":222" /> NGOs are also overlooked by the [[Vietnamese Fatherland Front|Vietnam Fatherland Front]], an umbrella organization that reports observations directly to the Party and Central government.<ref name=":052"/> Since NGOs in Vietnam are not entirely non-governmental, they have been coined instead as 'VNGOs.'<ref name=":052"/> Most VNGOs have originated from either the state, hospital or university groups, or individuals not previously associated with any groups.<ref name=":052"/> VNGOs have not yet reached those most in need, such as the rural poor, due to the entrenched power networks' opposition to lobbying for issues such the rural poor's land rights.<ref name=":222" /> [[Authoritarianism]] is prevalent in nearly all Vietnamese civic organizations.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal|last=Wischermann|first=Jorg|date=July 2013|title=Civic Organizations in Vietnam's One-Party State: Supporters of Authoritarian Rule?|url=https://www.giga-hamburg.de/de/publication/civic-organizations-in-vietnams-one-party-state-supporters-of-authoritarian-rule|journal=GIGA Working Papers|volume=228|via=German Institute of Global and Area Studies}}</ref> Authoritarian practices are more present in inner-organizational functions than in organization leaders' worldviews.<ref name=":02" /> These leaders often reveal both authoritarian and libertarian values in contradiction.<ref name=":02" /> Representatives of Vietnam's NGO's stated that disagreements are normal, but conflicts within an organization should be avoided, demonstrating the one-party "sameness" mentality of authoritarian rule.<ref name=":02" />
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)