Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
participation and
its relationship
to Community
Development
Introduction
From a situation in the 1950s where community development was perceived
to be synonymous with community participation, the situation has now
changed to one in which there appears to be no clear understanding of the
relationship between the two. Instead, the literature on this topic shows the
emergence of three conflicting strands of thought. In the first, community
development is superseded by a more appropriate form of community parti-
cipation (de Kadt, 1982). In the second, it is still the view that "community
development and community participation are basically the same [but that]
community development has gone out of fashion and been re-invented as
community participation" (Sheng, 1990:57). The third strand is that
wherein community development is recognised as a form of participation,
but there are different, and contradictory, views of its application (eg. Jones
and Wiggle, 1987; Ekong and Sekoya, 1982; Waseem, 1982).
This paper explores these three strands, as they appear in the literature,
and analyses the reasons for the differences. By identifying elements in the
wider environment which are associated with successful community develop-
ment projects, a more coherent relationship between community develop-
ment and community participation is established.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. 2 April 1995 pp.158-168
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 159
APPROACH :
t
COMMUNITY
t
DEVELOPMENT EMPOWERMENT
community development, which was considered the cause for this failure to
achieve economic and social progress, rather than the principle of commun-
ity participation itself. This laid the foundation for a new, "more appro-
priate" approach to community participation, based upon the concept of
community power and control.
to the role of government and the second category to the complexity of the
decision-making process which pertained to a specific project.
the internal community dynamic; and the third to the interaction of the
community project with the wider environment.
(i) the nature of the project. Historically, successful community development
projects have been built around predominantly social issues to which
people in a community relate easily. Thus Srinivasan, for example,
emphasises the importance of training sessions being designed so as to
simulate a community level process as closely as possible (Srinivasan,
1993:35). Where other components are introduced into the decision-
making process, e.g. the use of technology, these are introduced in a
way which fits them to this framework. This is the basis for the concept
of "intermediate" or "appropriate" technologies. Finally there is the
technique of reducing a multi-variable problem, e.g. environmental
health, down to its component parts, eg. not drinking polluted water;
giving proper weaning foods etc.
(ii) the community dynamic. Smit argues that "the notion of a community
is always something of a myth. A community implies a coherent entity
with a clear identity and a commonality of purpose. The reality is that
communities, more often than not, are made up of an agglomeration
of factions and interest groups often locked in competitive relation-
ships" (Smit, 1990:1). Successful community development projects over-
come the problems associated with community heterogeneity by their
focus on small groups which are brought together through common
interest. In this way small group work can be a successful vehicle for
acceptance of a project within the wider community,
(iii) the interaction between the community project and the wider environment.
Community development is strongly focussed upon the needs of the
community while functioning within a government framework.
Empowerment sees the relationship between the two as confrontational.
In both cases, when other actors are involved, it is assumed that they
are (a) secondary; and (b) subservient to either government or com-
munity. Increasingly this assumption is invalid. Many community pro-
jects impinge upon wider national, or even international, needs (e.g.
wildlife conservation programmes). In these situations it becomes
necessary to incorporate other actors, with their own needs and agen-
das, into the decision-making process.
increasing
arena of consensus
complexity
decision-making
of projects
arena of
empowerment arena of successful
struggles community development
increasing openness of government to the
involvement of communities in decision-making
Conclusions
In terms of the three strands of thought about the nature of community
development this paper has shown that it is a distinct form of community
participation. However, if community development is to improve upon its
success as a recognised and valid approach to community participation,
then it is important to understand what makes a successful project and how
the conditions might be replicated. Equally it is important to understand
why community development fails. The paper has shown the distinction
between the concept of community development failing, and community
development being applied inappropriately.
Different forms of community participation are appropriate under differ-
ent circumstances, and community development is one of these forms of
participation. Its appropriateness is determined by two factors in the wider
environment. The first and most critical is the openness of government to
the involvement of communities in the decision-making process. For com-
munity development to function, government must be open. However this
alone is insufficient to determine whether community development will
succeed. The effectiveness of community development is also constrained
by the complexity of the decision-making process. Thus community develop-
ment becomes less effective as a vehicle for involving communities in
decision-making as the complexity of the decision-making process increases.
Community development is an important form of community participation
but if it is to develop further there needs to be a greater understanding of
the external factors which inhibit its effectiveness.
Bibliography
Abbott, J., (1993), "The theory and practice of community participation in the
provision of urban infrastructure", PhD thesis (unpublished), University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Alliband, T., (1982), "Some Uses of Science in Community Development",
Community Development Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 141-146.
Arnstein, S. R., (1969), "A ladder of citizen participation", Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, Vol. XXXV, No. 4, pp. 216-224.
Batten, T. R., (1967), The non-directive approach in group and community work,
(Third impression 1975), Oxford University Press, London.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 167
De Kadt, E., (1982), "Community Participation for Health: The case of Latin
America", World Development, Vol. 10, No. 7, pp. 573-584.
Ekong, E. E. and Sokoya, K. L., (1982), "Success and Failure in Rural Community
Development Efforts: A study of two cases in Southwestern Nigeria", Community
Development Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 217-224.
Gilbert, A. & Ward, P., (1984a), "Community Action by the Urban poor:
Democratic Involvement, Community Self-help or a Means of Social Control",
World Development, Vol. 12, No. 8, pp. 769-782.
Jones, A., (1992), "Community development training - A comparative approach",
Community Development Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 199-210.
Jones, J. & Wiggle, I., (1987), "The concept and Politics of'Integrated Community
Development'" Community Development Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 107-117.
Kolawole, A., (1982), "The role of Grassroots Participation in National
Development: Lessons from the Kwara State of Nigeria", Community Development
Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 121-133.
Marsden, D. & Oakley, P., (1982), "Editorial Introduction", Community
Development Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 186-189.
Mayo, M., (1975), "Community Development: a radical alternative", in R. Bailey
and M. Brake (eds.), Radical Social Work, Edward Arnold, London, pp. 129-143.
Midwinter, E., (1992), "Old Age and Community Development", Community
Development Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 285-289.
Moser, C. O. N., (1983), "The problem of evaluating community participation in
urban development" C. Moser (ed.) Evaluating Community Participation in Urban
Development Projects, London: Development Planning Unit Working Paper
No. 14, pp. 3-11.
Moser, C. O. N., (1989), "Community Participation in Urban Projects in the Third
World", Progress in Planning, Vol. 32, Part 2.
Nkunika, A. I. Z., (1987), "The role of popular participation in programmes of
social development", Journal of Social Development in Africa, Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp. 17-28.
Oakley, P. and Marsden, D., (1984), Approaches to Participation in Rural
Development, ILO, Geneva.
Sanders, I. T., (1970), "The Concept of Community Development", in L. J. Cary
(ed), Community Development as a Process, University of Missouri Press,
Columbia, pp. 9-31.
Sheng, Y. K., (1990), "Community Participation in Low-Income Housing Projects:
problems and prospects", Community Development Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 56-65.
Smit, D., (1990), "Community Participation: Some Realities", Seminar on community
participation in service provision for township development, University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Srinivasan, L., (1992), Options for Educators - A Monograph for Decision Makers
on Alternative Participatory Strategies", PACT/CDS, New York.
Srinivasan, L., (1993), Tools for Community Participation - A Manual for Training
Trainers in Participatory Techniques", Prowess/UNDP, Washington.
168 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. 2 1995