4 Theoretical Framework for CBA
4.1.1 Development Theory
In order to understand how CBA is partly rooted in development theory it is important to clarify several things. These include the meaning of development, or international development, itself; what development theory alludes to; and how the evolution of development theory has led to alternative theories of development, including that of community development. ‘Development’, in the words of Jan
39 Four of these elements have been gleaned from Schipper’s PhD thesis published in 2004. During the process of building a theoretical framework for adaptation to climate change she breaks down the theory into three key elements, these include: roots, paradigms, and entry points. In a separate section Schipper also identifies ‘key concepts’ that support adaptation theory. These are helpful elements to develop a sound understanding of theory and therefore are borrowed in this thesis to build a theoretical framework for CBA, with the addition of ‘Linkages with DRR’.
Nederveen Pieterse (2010, pp. 3-4), is “the organised intervention in collective affairs according to a standard of improvement”. And it is this notion of ‘improvement’ that is of critical importance to development theory. What is an improvement and what is an appropriate intervention to reach this improvement vary “between class, culture, historical context and relations of power” (Nederveen Pieterse, 2010, p. 4). In turn it is the negotiation of these issues that forms the heart of development theory, although the focus of development theory predominantly falls on the macro theories and those that have been made into national or international policy frameworks (Ibid.). Table 13 provides a helpful overview of how the meanings of development have changed through time.
Nederveen Pieterse suggests that development theory began in the nineteenth century in response to the “crisis of progress” caused by industrialisation (2010, p. 1).
However it is necessary to go back to the late eighteenth century to the work of Adam Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’ (1776) and Thomas Malthus’s ‘An Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society’ (1798) to find the roots of development theory. Meanwhile Adam Smith is a father to modern day economics, capitalism and the leading role of the market to bring about wealth to nations, Thomas Malthus first introduced the concept of a limited ‘carrying capacity’
for Earth as he argued that “population would inevitably outstrip resources as human demand for food and energy” increased (Stoesz, Guzzetta, & Lusk, 1998, p. 103).
The works of these men, together with the work of David Ricardo40 in the early nineteenth century, are pivotal as they form the context and foundation for contemporary development theory. Notably the work of Smith and Ricardo set the paradigm through which later development theories, including growth theory and the
40 David Ricardo contributed to the work of Adam Smith in his ‘Principles of Political Economy and Taxation’ (1817) where he introduces the concept of comparative advantage and promotes the concept of free-trade between countries for economic growth.
classical economic approach within modernisation theory41 and neo-liberalism (based on capitalism), developed (Haines, 2000; Stoesz et al., 1998). In contrast Malthus’s concern with balancing population growth with distribution, which faded as the Green Revolution proved many of his predictions wrong, is most prominently revived in sustainable development theory.
Period Perspectives Meanings of Development
1800s Classical political economy Remedy for progress, catching up 1850 > Colonial economics Resource management, trusteeship 1870 > Late-comers Industrialisation, catching-up 1940 > Development economics Economic growth – industrialisation 1950 > Modernisation theory Growth, political and social modernisation 1960 > Dependency theory Accumulation – national, autocentric 1970 > Alternative development Human flourishing
1980 > Human development Capacitation, enlargement of people’s choices Neoliberalism Economic growth – structural reform,
deregulation, and liberalisation, privatisation.
1990> Post-development Authoritarian engineering, disaster 2000 Millennium Development Goals Structural reforms
Table 13. Meanings of development over time Source: Nederveen Pieterse (2010, p. 7)
The roots of development theory in classical economics during the Industrial Revolution explain why, although not without criticism42, development has been seen as synonymous with economic growth (to the extent that GDP per capita was an accepted measure of “development”). It was only in the mid-twentieth century that significant attention in the development community turned toward the social and environmental consequences of such economic-driven development, and in the 1970s that “consensus within orthodox development theory” about modernisation theory and the trickle down benefits of economic growth fractured (Haines, 2000, p. 45).
41 In the 1950s and 1960s modernisation theory set out that the economic and social problems experienced in non-western countries (for example in Africa, Latin America and Asia) were caused by a lack of capitalist markets, free-trade and industrialisation. Also, even though it was becoming clear in the late 1970s that economic growth did not lead to equality, neo-liberalism upholds the theory that market-led policies will be effective to bring about development (Haines, 2000).
42 Even though he did not displace capitalism in the Western world, it is important to note the influence of Karl Marx upon development theory as early at the nineteenth century. Karl Marx’s writings came a little later than Adam Smith and brought to light the social ills of capitalism. Marx thus highlighted that capitalism creates greater inequality as the bourgeoisie get richer and the working class or labourers get poorer. He highlighted that this is expressed not only as financial poverty but also reflected in poor housing conditions, poor public health and reduced ownership of production (Stoesz et al., 1998). Ultimately, based on his ‘Theory of History’ Marx predicted that capitalism would inevitably breakdown and would be replaced by communism (Wolff, 2010). Marxist thinking is now reflected in Alternative Development theories, like Community Development, which believe that development strategies for low-income nations and the poor need to be “home grown” to avoid the downfalls of Western models (Stoesz et al., 1998, p. 109).
Therefore, in contrast to neo-classical and neo-liberal development theories43 that focus on modes of production and the macroeconomic structures of nations to bring about human welfare, from the 1950s theories supporting alternative development, social development, and human development gained strength and substance as they focused on questions of distribution (e.g. equity) and “reflected an awareness of [social], ecological and environmental costs” (Ibid., p. 46).
One notable contribution to this transition, from pure economic development towards the social, cultural, political and environmental elements of development, is the basic needs approach of the 1970s. This development approach, later adopted by the major international development banks, drew attention to the uneven nature of development and the failure of wealth to improve the prospects of the poor. Although the basic needs approach still promoted capitalism it brought issues of poverty (originally addressed by religious and charitable organisations) into the development arena and highlighted that economic processes must be supported by policies in health, education and political sectors in order to improve people’s quality of life. (Stoesz et al., 1998, pp. 117-120) It also led to social development practice that focuses on improving infrastructure, education, access to housing and health care, as methods for improving human development and primarily works through NGOs and development agencies rather than the State or the Market. Furthermore, together with the significant work of Amartya Sen on human capabilities, it contributed to human development theory in the 1980s, which assumes that “the means and end” of achieving development is to build human resources (Nederveen Pieterse, 2010, p.
187). An important outcome of this theory is the creation of the composite ‘Human Development Index’ by UNDP, which is now used worldwide to measure health, education and living standards – the three dimensions of human development (Stoesz et al., 1998, p. 119; UNDP, 2010a).
43 These theories still prevail strongly today in the presence of other alternative and oppositional development theories. Although now there is a much more holistic understanding of development today, still these theories believe that the market is the main vehicle through which development can be realised.
The basic needs approach is one of the substantial expressions of what became known in the 1970s as ‘alternative development theory’ into which grassroots or community development falls, which is a founding part of CBA theory. Alternative development challenges the “agents, methods and objectives or values of development” and is therefore “concerned with introducing alternative practices and redefining the goals of development” with typically more people-centred and participatory approaches (Nederveen Pieterse, 2010, p. 84 and 85). In addition to community development, key theories under the banner of alternative development include social capital, gender and development (namely development feminism), populism, and sustainable development (Nederveen Pieterse, 2010; Stoesz et al., 1998). These theories are interdependent as they edify and link with one another. It is to community-based development theory that we shall now turn.
Community-Based Development
Words that have been attributed to community development include ‘grassroots’,
‘self-help’ or ‘participatory development’ (Stoesz et al., 1998). According to Stoestz and others, community development “embodies the concept that collectivities of people who share common concerns have the potential capacity to deal jointly with those concerns in ways that advance the common interest” (1998, p. 129).
Community development preceded alternative development theory and has origins in the 1920s and 1930s rural development programmes in India and the 1930s
“community improvement and social welfare programmes in the United States and Britain” (Monaheng, 2000, p. 126). These subsequently provided experiential lessons for lower-income nations so that by the 1950s and early 1960s community development had risen in popularity as a development approach and as a means to prepare colonial nations for independence. A wealth of literature surrounding community development followed in the 1960s into the 1970s, however, due to growing attention to the role of the Green Revolution to address rural poverty at the
end of the 1960s44, community development saw a steady decline until it re-gained prominence as part of the basic needs, integrated rural development, and sustainable development approaches. (Monaheng, 2000, pp. 126-131) (FAO, 2008, p. 25)
One of the main aims of community development is to move the powers of decision-making from elite parties into the hands of communities and whole populations. Note, that community development is therefore not about individuals per se, but about collectives. (Stoesz et al., 1998) The purpose of this is to empower communities and strengthen their capacity for self-sustaining development and to promote locally-driven change that reflects “local culture, skills, and comparative advantage”
(Monaheng, 2000; Stoesz et al., 1998, p. 162). Therefore community development theory is applicable to both rural and urban settings where poverty prevails. In particular, community development became popular practice in low- and middle-income nations through Rapid Rural Appraisal [RRA] and Participatory Rapid Appraisal [PRA] of the mid-1980s to 1990s. Community development specifically emphasises that development problems are multifaceted and therefore they need to be addressed in a coordinated way that does not elevate economic development goals above social, political, environmental and cultural aspects of development (Monaheng, 2000). Secondly, community development emphasises (especially in recent years) the importance of partnership between different stakeholders, for example, government, NGOs and local communities “in order to maximise the impact of their efforts…and to avoid unnecessary duplication or conflicts” (Ibid.).
It may be concluded therefore that community development is concerned with three key features that include: felt needs, participation and education. In other words, community development aims to address development needs that have been identified by communities themselves and not an external agency (although external agencies
44 The Green Revolution was based on the concept of reducing rural poverty by improving farmer productivity This was to be achieved by increasing agricultural yield at a faster rate than input use, which was believed to subsequently lower production costs for farmers as well as food prices for society. (FAO, 2008, p. 25)
can be necessary to bring information to the community to raise their awareness to potential future risks); it also seeks to engage community members in their own development process through participatory methods that are voluntary and democratic; and finally it desires the process of development to be educational so that community members can improve their ability to cope with present and future challenges by increasing in knowledge, confidence, and collaboration. (Monaheng, 2000, pp. 127-128) In contrast to other development theories and methods where the state, private sector or market are the main actor, in community development theory the people of a community are the main actors in the development process.
Nevertheless, the role of the government, NGOs and community development workers to support and facilitate development are readily valued and recognised (Monaheng, 2000).
These transitions in development theory from predominantly economic development to a more holistic and localised understanding of development are relevant and form the roots for CBA theory in several ways. Firstly, through the basic needs approach poverty reduction became a mainstream goal of development strategies. Secondly, through social and human development theories the non-economic elements of development (such as human welfare) became elevated in importance. And thirdly, through a rise of alternative development theory the flaws of both macroeconomic and top-down Western strategies to bring about development were acknowledged. As a result there grew a rising support for development practice that addressed local issues through local interventions, and thus advocated local indigenous methods and community empowerment that are often achieved through community development.