The region began to expand the sophistication of the inter-city connections in the latter part of the 70s owing to the provinces desire to operate within the international sphere. The Semnan province had not engaged in external communication transmissions until this time despite the considerable potential in past regimes. This was primarily due to the border and the relatively localised construct of the Garmsar communities in relation to the resource of the salt desert. However, in more recent times this has perspective of a barren land has been overturned by the shifts in agricultural techniques. Before the realisation of current techniques, most of the provinces in the Semnan province lacked access to communication. Other townships and related rural communities including villages and farms did not have the necessary telephone capacity.
The Islamic revolution of Iran had a profound effect within the region of Garmsar by integrating a number of plans. The development of the plans taken in overseeing development in the regions caused a multi-lateral push across all levels of the province incorporating transmissions and telephonic networks. The emphasis placed upon Iran was to modernise across the entire nation state. This included the expanding of communication in Islamic countries. In the Garmsar region, this oversaw what would eventually become the technologically essential foundations for businesses and communities in the global world. The state and local businesses provided the conditions necessary for progressive systems of transmission, such as digital centres, complex systems of optical fibre transmission cables, digital centres of inter-city based communication information exchange, mobile networks, data communication networks and communication geo-satellites. Nevertheless, the social aspects of the Garmsar region have lacked in recent evaluations and studies regarding the rural communities in the region. Essentially, as the economies of the cities have been undertaken and the technological advancements have been addressed in the produce of rural areas, so the development of the societies and communities has been under studied.
1.4 Community Development
One third of Iran s population lives in rural areas that have limited access to the information required to meet standard rural agriculture and community development (Hosseini et al, 2009). This highlights the lack of technology and knowledge available to the region of Gramsar, marked by the relative poverty compared to the rest of the western world. The charge of lacking technology in the region is generally levelled by technocratic societies, but is also seen in relation to the requirements of the region and its desire to develop communicative links. For example, the development of its own community links defined as essential to development has been marked throughout its history. The technocratic need for development is a key concern for the community and has been a large part of the modernising process. However, in light of globalisation, this has become even more pressing and access to foreign technologies has become more accessible. Indeed, it would appear that to achieve the goal of successfully incorporating and adapting to ICT s as an available, accessible, affordable and ultimately extendable technologies is to modernise the rural population of Gramsar, including the extension of services to deliver information within the financial, social, human and organisational sustainability need to be realised first and obtained over a period of time (Hosseini, 2009). The relationship between establishing the correct communal links within the community and adopting the necessary technologies to adapt and develop are made clear by Hosseini when it is stated that
Technology options that provide affordable access need to be carefully examined. Therefore innovative technologies and applications need to be developed that cater specifically to rural areas. The financial burden on developing ICT for rural areas is mainly on the governments and it is important to help and introduce NGOs and private sector to participate in developing ICTs in rural Iran (Hosseini et al, 2009).
Essentially, the technology necessary to undergo many of the necessary conditions for becoming a productive and rural community are not at the forefront of the community project. Rather, the social conditions of the community must be in place as a primary factor in acquiring and finally incorporating the necessary technologies as part of the process. This ultimately means that the network of social links and structures has to be established first before the relevant technologies become necessary. It has been suggested that it is necessary to remove the impediments faced by the developing rural economy and provide basic infrastructure in the aforementioned areas so as to enable the spread of information communication technologies (Lee Lee, 2004). This would enable ICT to be part of a comprehensive socio-economic development strategy for rural development as a means for increased stability, not an end to productivity (Lee and Lee, 2004). In Garmsar, current communication technologies are not archaic or problematic. Rather, community development has emerged alongside the technological frameworks which have in turn been developed in accordance with the development of the communities.
In the majority of developing rural communities the emphasis is upon the people in the society being involved in the community s activities. This also appears to be the case in Gramsar. Unlike communities in the developed, highly technocratic world in which the social and economic norms are based upon strong institutions, whereby social issues are the primary concern of the government, rural communities in the developing world are deeply dependent upon activity and social actors. This comparison can be seen in the amount of non-participation that occurs in affluent, modern societies. For example, the level of unemployment and work associated with bureaucracy and information exchange reveals the lack of dependency that western nations have upon activity in relation to generating wealth. However, in less privileged and developed communities, success and failure can be determined on the basis of social activity and participation. Whereas in capitalist and modernistic societies development is generally coordinated by elites and the expert classes, business and businesses in a rural community of the developing world are not those based upon such elite forms of leadership, depending instead upon communal needs. Rather, the work is enacted and produced by the majority of people within the community over a number of roles and activities. Furthermore, the associated and essential leadership structures are not based upon the same social stratification and those in power generally have a strict hierarchy in which social norms are sustained. However, as can be seen in the historical examples outlined, when poverty is introduced, the make up of this hierarchal chain based upon central governance begins to fracture so that corruption and exploitation may become common throughout the chain allowing opportunism, self interest and exploitation to become the main comprising variable to many of the communities.
In avoiding such divisible factors in the ambition of developing a community so that it may operate more fairly and effectively a number of key developmental factors become central to the society (). Such factors bring about a number of definitive social actors and goals. However, to establish the essential goals through the correct social actors, the required skills and knowledge have to be acquired. This brings skills and knowledge into the equation as these must be distributed and utilised through a temporal and ever changing emphasis that accords to the desired development of the community. Essentially, the skills and knowledge required may change depending upon the need and the resources, meaning that a diverse body of knowledge and skills must be available. The community must be adaptable so that it can progress and the actors involved must be versatile and knowledge so that skills and knowledge can be transferred. Essentially, the community has to be one based upon participation and activity.
Participating communities are those that are open to involvement by all groups within a society and its region, whose skills must be adapted to fit the particular social role. The responsibilities in a developing community are generally divided throughout the social strata so that the specialised talents and particular interests of the contributing organisations and service agents can be engaged within the community (). In this way, the role of executive power and the responsibility of the social actors are de-centralised and the required skills and knowledge can be sought from the necessary domain. The diversity of the community is therefore essential to development as it has to sustain development by being adaptable enough in any particular area (). Rather than having a central source, a number of centres of activity and community action become the main tenets of community resource.
Other aspects of developing communities relate to how the community conducts its business and arranges its economy. Essentially, the conduct of business is done so largely through open avenues and is publicised widely throughout the region. It is generally the case that citizens are well informed about the communitys activities and how to access the providers of knowledge and resource. Other aspects to a community development project can be seen in relation to the ideas and values that are openly integrated. Rather than having private ownership of think tanks and corporate investments in specific ways of thinking, the ideas are open to the entire community. Essentially, all of the people within the community are treated with equal respect and welcomed as a potential source of inspiration as each member is deemed a participant on a number of potential levels with a value for the entire community. To be successful with its many different projects, the community must generally encourage its citizens to offer themselves in whatever capacity they have at their disposal for the common good of the development, which in turn is led by the community.
What this means is that distinctions among various specific groups can be disruptive if they are not maintained. The inclusion of all groups is required so that all persons are actively welcome, regardless of socio-economic variables such as race, colour, age, prior community involvement, level of education, occupation, personal reputation, handicap, religion, or any other factor (Skidmore et al, 1998). The community cannot afford to be passive. It cannot wait for a diverse group of citizens to present themselves and offer help and support via their own means. Rather, the community must have a structure in which these kinds of diverse groups can be sought and actively engaged and encouraged to become participants within the community. Further, the development of a community cannot be controlled by any single organization or group as it requires autonomy with a view to establish its own functionality from a social and economic perspective.
However, a number of factors can be seen as disruptive to the process of community development even with the aforementioned procedures put in place. These include past discriminations and other factors that may stop people from wishing to integrate into the community project (). With the prospect of both covert and overt external interference from globalisation, the development of the Gramsar community is vulnerable. That is to say that globalisation is able to penetrate the region giving an emphasis to a competitive demand for technologies to compete at a global level. Therefore, the region has to develop in a way that can maintain the emphasis placed upon communal requirements rather than purely capitalist factors. There are concerns regarding the difficulties associated with social behaviours in rural areas such as the Gramsar region. For instance, discussions regarding the extent of collective action problems focusing upon the difficulties associated with the necessary allocation of costs and benefits, in which individual actors are given an incentive to free ride on the actions of others, has brought about a number of areas of concern. The efficacy of collective action has been said to be dependent upon the size of the particular group involved in any community action, as well as the degree of inequality and the outside options available to members involved in the process (Baland and Platteau, 1997 Dayton-Johnson, 2000).
Concerns regarding these detrimental sociological factors associated with effective community action raise two key issues. In particular, these factors are practical and analytical respectively. The practical issue can be seen in that the financiers may be
unwilling or unable to identify and assess the capability of the community to engage in positive collective action. This is extended in the notion that they may not be practically willing to invest heavily in the development of such a capacity in the context of any specific development project put forward or activity that has been planned (). Further, financiers may instead decide that the community should take up the process of self selection so that the projects become participatory in nature. Indeed, this has been put forward by a number of theorists. For example, actions of this sort are often seen as the opening up of the majority of successful rural development projects (Uphoff, Esman Krishna, 1998).
This would indicate that better organized communities will benefit disproportionately from an increased emphasis on participation and that models of rural development are best served from the perspective of community participation. For example, in Indonesia, Isham and Kahkonen (1999) found that in villages with high levels of social capital, in particular with active village groups and associations, household participation was more likely to be high and monitoring mechanisms were more likely to be in place than in areas of lower social capital (Isham Kahkonen, 1998). It was also found that there were similar results and subsequent divergent trends in Sri Lanka and India (Isham Kahkonen, 1998).
Other relations between rural development and communal action can be seen in a number of other studies concerned with community development. For instance, in a study conceived by Lam it was found that high levels of mutual trust, as measured by the
extent to which oral promises were kept in the region was associated with the improved physical condition and delivery of water resources in the rural regions of Nepal (Lam, 1998). It was also found in this study that where trust and social capital were
positively associated with incomes and community based self selection project benefits were better received within the communities (Lam, 1998). It was also found that by integrating the patterns of relationships in traditional communities, the application development driven by social capital can be used as the basis for modern co-operative development (Worsley and Allen, 1971).
2.0 Literature Review
2.1 Models of Participation
Devising a better model of rural development has been one of the main emphases placed upon organisations and governments in the global age. The dichotomous left and right spectrum that often accompanies the practise and critique of technocratic societies has resultantly put forward a number of strategies based upon modernising local communities in the developing world as part of a design to generate better resources throughout the world. Traditional models and unstructured forms of rural development have often overlooked many of the sociological factors associated with the society as a community. Conversely, modern models have attempted to incorporate autonomy and community based practices in the regions, wherein democratising powers have been given along with financial aid from regions. This was popular in the poorer regions in the developed world and in the post colonial regions formerly governed by western affluent nations. However, a number of these regions did not benefit from the independence from the western nations and often fell into political regimes in which archaic ways of life and fundamentalist ideologies swallowed up any chance of sustaining development to their rural regions.
In light of this and significant changes in theoretical approaches to development, more considered economic designs have been put into place to assist regions in the global age. However, the study of community development has been made difficult in contemporary times due to the analytical tools left by those invested in the regions. An example of the need to change the way in which we analyse rural development in relation to sociological apparatus can be seen in Nameh et al, (2003) statement that
The development policies of the last decades stressing structural adjustment, liberalization, and privatisation (which have been implemented by the authorities in particular in the agricultural sector) have been conducive to increasing the size of the vulnerable rural strata. The first step in protecting the vulnerable rural strata is their identification through scientific methods. (Nameh et al, 2003)
Bringing in communities as instruments of poverty reduction is often seen as a key part of the changing discourses regarding the pre-conditions associated with poverty reduction. The focus can then veer towards an approach that focused upon less technocratic remedies that are often perceived as being the main problem in an impoverished area and instead upon more institutionally based factors attributed with the social design of the area. Of the theorists associated with this sociological analysis, Cohen and Uphoff (1980) provided some of the earliest statements in which the rapidly growing discourse of institutional design has begun to develop.
The relationship between discourse and action can be seen amongst the social strata including non-government organisations, development of practitioners and donors as well as larger global entities including the European Union and the World Bank. International as well as key governmental and non-governmental agencies have begun to realise that the main reason for the majority of unsuccessful development projects has been and still continues to be the lack of pro-active, effective and above all lasting participation of the intended beneficiaries in a given rural region. This contrasts with more conventional and traditional forms of capitalist developments. Although conventional projects are generally still prevalent they are predominantly production-oriented. When considered in the project design, participation is regarded as a means to achieve certain productive objectives that are in turn predetermined by an outside agency. In essence, this is the antithesis of the participatory model of rural development. For example, FAO, ILO, IFAD and other UN agencies, various progressive governments and furthermore to a great extent by NGOs are giving credence to participation as a goal and measurement on which to evaluate success in rural development. Indeed, the World Bank has stated that
Participation is a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them. (World Bank, 1994)
This has been further emphasised by theorists, who have placed an emphasis upon participation by deconstructing the terminology associated with it and brought about solid and grounded theoretical underpinnings involved in the process of social participation as it occurs within developing rural communities. For example, Cohen and Uphoff reiterate the notion that
With regard to rural development . . . participation includes peoples involvement in decision-making processes, in implementing programmes, their sharing in the benefits of development programmes and their involvement in efforts to evaluate such programmes. (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977)
This highlights four distinct factors and subsequent role players within the process of rural development. Furthermore, it would appear that many public institutions at a global level have begun to respond favourably to many of the calls voiced by the activist groups, development practitioners and many of the progressive thinkers involved in the discourses of greater public involvement highlighted in the process. Decision making and holding governments to account for following through on their public duties, responsibilities and profound commitments is becoming common place in the global age. However, the role of what participation is across the vast social strata involved in processes of change and development can vary enormously.
Essentially, in each aspect of the human and civil process, participation is seen in different ways according to the role of the different actors. Due to this, the analysis of the relationship between the discourse and the action in certain regions is often seen as semiotic in nature. Many articles and pieces of secondary research have attempted to explore a number of the different meanings and practical applications of participation, in terms of both theory and in terms of its practice. For example, it has been suggested that the role of participation is vital so that closer attention can be paid towards who it is that is participating, in what way they are participating and for the benefit of whom (). Through a general vagueness regarding the meaning of what participation constitutes may have helped the promise of public involvement. However, to examine and propel more participation at a social rather purely institutional or market based level, the notion put forward by Cohen and Uphoff in that clarity through specificity may be necessary so that more participation is realised (Cornwall, 2008).
According to Uphoff there are a number of distinctions within the concept of social participation. These distinctions include beneficiary, implementation, evaluation and decision making. Beneficiary participation offers the potential for the design and implementation of interventions that more closely reflect the preferences of the population that they are designed to serve (Hoddinott, 2002). The beneficiary aspect of the analytical framework associated with social participation in accordance with Uphoff et al is that the role of those that administer the implementations and plans required to develop a rural area is seen in terms of the impact. As it is hard to understand the social impact, rather than individual impact, of certain activities the beneficiary role in relation to participation is a key one that is defined as separate from the other roles. In the Uphoff model, it is the relationship between participation and action that is of significance. Essentially, this relationship then denotes the sustained accomplishments as part of the social process towards redevelopment and is subsequently outlined in a specific framework made to highlight those especially in a poverty setting who seek to benefit from the aims.
One of the main stresses that were put forward by Uphoff s analytical framework is that the beneficiary participation has the potential to lower the essential costs associated with providing anti-poverty interventions. This is essential to being able to adapt to a social and cultural system in which poverty is a significant conditional factor and wherein a number of dispersed decisions may result in opportunist forms of benefit (). By applying the Uphoff model, the researcher can then generate an illustration of what happens when the poor move away from being passive beneficiaries to being the providers of their own anti-poverty interventions. However, it has also been argued that the failure to delegate true decision making authority (allowing for de jure but not de facto participation) can result in beneficiaries being reluctant to act because of concerns that they will be subsequently overruled (Hoddinott, 2002). Therefore, the factors of decision making, evaluation and implementation based actions have to be aligned and seen in a holistic manner as being part of a social process across a range of actors.
The decision making process must therefore be made up of those from the community in relation to certain aspects of the community and its needs. This means that the decision making process is undergone by bringing representatives into a meeting in which overall needs can be addressed before a decision can be made in relation to a set plan or goal. Furthermore, the implementations of the plans require a different form of social actor than those that make the decision and those that evaluate it. This has been noted as there has to be two separate actors, though the non-governmental organisation may assist in providing the specialised knowledge required to generate the correct cooperative link (Hoddinott, 2002). Nevertheless, the implementation has to be overseen by someone external to the beneficiary and the decision maker, culminating in a role that is distinct. In this sense, the problematic sociological reality put forward by Hoddinott (2002) can be overcome within the structure of the community.
By taking the role of four actors into account in terms of procedural participation, development can be seen in terms of a social play. That is to say that the roles are not determined on the basis of a leadership model or one that is necessarily based upon the capitalist aims of generating greater pockets of money in accordance with specific trades and classes. Rather, it is based upon the aim of the society itself as functional entity in which it grows and constantly seeks to revise and re-incorporate certain needs and desires attributed to development. In participatory projects that incorporate the process put forward by Uphoff, the role of active participation is seen as the main goal of the planning. This means that the participation itself is the main outcome of the actors involved across the social strata including those of the private, governmental and non-institutional frameworks. Other theorists have developed ways in which participation can be utilised through the four way process that include the building of the community s capacity to develop.
2.2 Models of Capacity Building
In contemporary models of development, trade offs tend to arise when the most efficient provider within the framework is not also the same body or representative who cares most about the poor (). However, with an autonomous aim geared towards participation, a measure aimed at building the capacity of the community can be incorporated. Capacity building is essentially a more macro based form of social analysis than that of participation. Nevertheless, capacity building is seen in direct relation to participation. One of the seminal overviews of capacity building can be seen in the UNCED charter in which it is stated that
Specifically, capacity building encompasses the country s human, scientific, technological, organizational, institutional and resource capabilities. A fundamental goal of capacity building is to enhance the ability to evaluate and address the crucial questions related to policy choices and modes of implementation among development options, based on an understanding of environment potentials and limits and of needs perceived by the people of the country concerned. (UNCED, 1992.)
However, capacity building is not only restricted to participation. Rather, capacity building can be seen as an autonomous drive towards increasing social autonomy and mobility through increased capacity reviewed during the process of development. In this sense, capacity can be understood as relating to a number of areas. These include participation, but are not restricted by it. Rather, a number of other factors have been highlighted including community leadership, community power, skills knowledge as well as community participation. Ultimately, these factors drive the development of the rural community towards realising the necessary knowledge and skills the innovative and proven methodologies required networking and funding opportunities replicable models for addressing the diverse range of community needs and managing the resources at a sustainable rate options for organisational management and governance across social strata and strategies for the advocacy, governance and governmental relations and public outreach ().
Of the different factors involved in capacity building in relation to rural development, there are a number of ways in which to departmentalise them so as to create a model. So as to establish clarity, four of the major factors will be outlined for this project. The four componential factors to be used in this dissertation are community leadership, community power, skills knowledge and community participation. Community leadership is concerned with the governmental bodies and authorities allowing the community to steer its own destiny (). However, this could be interpreted in a number of ways, in many cases allowing privateers, opportunists and profiteers to influence the project towards an approach based upon capitalist exploitation. Therefore, there are a number of distinctive elements that determine what is meant by community leadership, how it is performed and who it is performed by.
In this sense, the model of capacity building is not adapted from a traditional approach to leadership such as with top-down and leader subordinate models of leadership. Rather, it involves local councillors and officers using many of the tools within their discretion to engage the community in making their own through participation and action (). Further, it promotes and enables a number of partnerships based upon shared commitments with a vision to promote a shared goal for the benefit of the locality in rural areas. Many of the requirements for community leadership include democratic legitimacy an ability to build up and expand upon effective partnerships with other local organisations a governmental commitment to community engagement an ability for local councils to respond effectively to local priorities and a sound understanding of local governance arrangements (). These can be combined with ideological and socio-economic imperatives, such as a view to vanquish violence in the developmental process, eliminate unfair processes and establish equality and tolerance of sexual, racial, ethnical and gender based differences (). This makes leadership cultural in nature and so we may consider cultural differences in forms of leadership and the types of values that accord to specific regions of the world.
The form of leadership can therefore not be assumed as its success depends upon a number of ways in which the community members value specific traits. Kanter states that this is best understood in relation to the continuing need for change at the heart of improvement in institutions and organisations and can be extended to any structure in which changes in roles is necessary (Kanter, 1997). Therefore, there is a clear need for adapting a structure of managerial capacity in relation to a fluid structure in which equality and knowledge can be stressed. For example, in the work conducted by Kanter it was stated that
Managerial work is undergoing such enormous and rapid change that
Many managers are reinventing their profession as they go. With little
precedent to guide them, they are watching hierarchy fade away and
the clear distinctions of title, task, department, even corporation, blur.
Faced with extraordinary levels of complexity and interdependency,
they watch traditional sources of power erode and the old motivational tools lose their magic (Kanter, 1997, p.59).
In this telling extract, we can see that the traditional boss-subordinate model of leadership is not capable of motivating and sustaining an inclusive framework based upon improvement. Indeed, as Hofstede suggests, it has given way to an interactive paradigm that requires a new set of skills across a greater social terrain (Hofstede, 2001). This means that the very notion of leaders and followers is now flexible and has to accept the notion of constant refocus, which in the relation to community development and cooperative action, leads to a holistic distribution of leadership roles and de-centralising of the decision making process.
With a change to the role of leaders and followers, so a change must occur in relation to the model of capacity building that incorporates the role of leadership within the social functioning of the community. This change has played an integral part in the success of modern democratic politics and societies. However, applying it to cooperative communal organisations is more difficult due to the lack of purposeful design. Nevertheless, these emerging emphases and changes in conceptual theory suggest a need to re-evaluate leadership within rural development. Subsequently, research into the concepts of a particular regions cultural and traditional value as they accord to notions of leadership and motivation has been introduced to the study of developing cooperatives (Schein, 2001).
Within economic and political domains, particularly with the increasing inter-dependency and exchange of information within the global marketplace, local resources have become part of a singular process that emphasises notions of creativity, flexibility, and comfort crossed with the reality of ambiguity and constant change (). This terminology implies that leadership encompass the humanistic realm that behavioural economists often ignore in their studies of a leaders behaviour in relation to the group that they serve (Bono, Judge, 2004). It would appear that in the established global reality, whilst leaders must figure themselves to be adept in a variety of skills, the concept of leadership itself requires sound judgments that come with education, understanding, experience, empathy and practice from within both the local community and the links to its other facilitators (Brown et al, 2003). Without establishing the essential humanistic and cultural traits that define the society alongside other more difficult to define factors, leadership is becoming a more elusive practice, culminating in the role being specialised and specific to a certain task or goal.
Globalisation, which is defined as an integrative process of interdependent connectivity, is shaking loose the static and traditional notions of community as an idealised and unified entity with a social hierarchy driven towards a utopia (Hartog et al, 1999). For instance, access to media technologies gives local people knowledge of certain non-traditional ideas that may benefit them. Furthermore, global economic processes often challenge the conceptions of capitalist, individual gain as the common global good , which is strongly promoted by the global media (Dickson, Hartog, Mitchelson, 2003). Due to this, there is a growing concern that globalisation, whilst it celebrates the strength of market capitalism and places an onus on diversity and free trade, is actually creating more divisions between the poor and the rich, which will conflict with the development of rural communities under a cooperative umbrella. In this process, the rich typically feel little responsibility in addressing growing economic inequality, yet are still able to manipulate the poor and their rural resources. This means that power is also a concern in relation to leadership.
In relation to a model of capacity building, power can be viewed as a property of inter-organisational ties based upon their ability to activate people and influence the way that they work, which can be described in terms of resource networks (Perrucci Pilisuk, 1970). The traditional notion of community power is one inclined to see the study of development as a community power structure. Such underlying assumptions have been put forward primarily by sociologists, whose prime orientation has been the study of American communities and their politics as a subsidiary aspect of a social structure (Polsby, 2009). This makes the traditional study of community power untrustworthy. Although there are various theories by which community power is structured and exerted, the majority maintain to this approach. However, we can view this approach as distinct from more current conceptualisations of community power.
Hunter conveniently defined power within a community as the power in which the community finds itself dominated, such as through business elites, to the exclusion of ordinary people (Hunter, 1958). Although this is clearly culturally dependent and can be undermined by many of the findings made by cultural theorists, such as Hofstede, it nevertheless proves worthy, if simplistic, in the global condition into which capitalist and socialist principles dichotomously dominate. Hofstede (1991, 2001) defines power distance as the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally. In cultures with large differences in power between individuals, organizations will typically have more layers and the chain of command is felt to be more important.
Essentially, the capitalist model in any region wishing to develop would be dominated by this form of power and aim if driven by an elite or set of elites. In this sense, we can see Hunter as the essence of the traditional power model of development in rural communities. However, in the contemporary view, the notion of community power is in direct opposition to the elitist decision making behaviours and subsequent demand for capital returns at the expense of all else. Rather, community power in the contemporary sense conceptualises and distributes power accordingly through the structure of the society in relation to the aims of the community (). Nevertheless, it would be foolish to assume that individual autonomy presided over the communities will. Rather, the power within the community would be swayed owing to the conditions of the culture and the heritage of its institutions.
Hofstede put forward the notion of power relations in which communities operated, separating certain types of power relations on the basis of the community (Hofstede, 1991). In communities with relationships based upon small power distance, the people would expect and accept power relations that were more democratic in nature, whereas communities with large power distance were bound by power relations that based upon autocratic distributions of power. In such conditions, subordinates would acknowledge the power of others based upon hierarchical status rather than upon equality. By involving people in the governance of services, participants in a participant community can then focus upon building and establishing relationships with public institutions and or officials that can offer the community access to valuable external resources. Such resources can include material and ideological support, such as money, advisory support and or political leverage. However, this can also include access to skills and knowledge.
Skills and knowledge and its distribution throughout the community and its resources is crucial to capacity building as it can extend the development and build the community through enabling certain aspects of the various social groups and role players across the social strata. This means that it requires networks and participants to deliver and refer knowledge skills, which in turn requires participation structures (). There are a number of participation structures that relate to community participation and the utilisation of skills and knowledge. From a conceptual perspective, these can be seen as relating to inequity, exclusivity and dependency of the community. Inequity is devised of a further two componential factors. These are preferential attachment and the notion that the rich get richer. The notion of preferential networks relates to the surrounding participation structures in the rural community and its resources, which all have a number of nodes. The nodes which consist of groups of actors or institutions have large numbers of connections to other nodes, which constitute a network of participation. This is one of the inequity devices at work in a participation community in which the participants are generally those that find the necessary knowledge and skills available to further participate and development. In such instances, negative sociological factors such as social exclusion and alienation may occur for those that have not participated in the development of the community. Further, it remains harder for such people to gain entry, representation and benefit from the development of the community.
Similarly, in the notion of the rich getting richer, participation confers the benefits of development that do not necessarily trickle down to the formerly excluded non participants (Uphoff, 1980). Essentially, individuals who gain a link to social capital through participation in development increase the likelihood of their continuing to gain more links social capital, such as the skills and knowledge necessary to compete and or partake. Ultimately, this means that inclusion has to be orchestrated so as to be a successful participation community and stopping to address the areas that are being neglected have to be assessed and reconfigured. Participants must have to learn about social and psychological factors, alongside economic and developmental factors. They have to learn about how the system works and how to assess the system in relation to the community and its goals. Skills and knowledge is therefore crucial to capacity building through participation and the current figures must learn to apply knowledge and skill in governance settings within the community.
Exclusivity is departmentalised into two main drivers. These are Closure and self exclusion. Closure can be understood as the value of the problem of linking social capital coming from preventing others from accessing it. Essentially, the preference of working with some community representatives rather than others can suit many public sector partners. Further, it can suit the representatives of the community to be the voices of the community at the expense of others resulting in some public sector partners listening to preferential actors in relation to decision making. For example, a closed relationship between one of the organisers and the local council has the potential to make one community project aware of an opportunity to access skills and knowledge funds that it wouldn t otherwise have known. In essence, it is a case of who the community leaders know and not what they know themselves. Similarly, self exclusion occurs when people opt out of activities that serve their interest to be involved (). This occurs when the community is perceived as not having the roles, responsibilities and directives to sustain the individual needs of the role player.
The factors dependency can also be seen in terms of two major contributing social factors. These are community dependency and institutional dependency. In the case of community dependency, the routine channelling of disproportionate burdens in matters of governance and directive activities culminates in disturbing relations. For example, community participants may perpetuate a vicious cycle in which burden increases and dampens the enthusiasm of others for alleviating that burden when others not present in the process are required to be informed of the decision outcomes. Essentially, by having a strong community dependency, the likelihood is that the participants will be less obliged to inform other less active members of the community as to the goings on of the project, so that key members and elites becomes central to the development. Institutional dependency is a social dependency related to capacity building in which fostering a culture of dependency can occur by placing importance on a small community elite within the rural community. In a situation of this kind, there is often a temptation to bring about a quick fix by recruiting for an existing community participant who is a known quality and quantity. This has the impact of failing to invest the scarce time and resources required to attract a new body of people who run the risk of not participating fully or who may drop out of the project at a sensitive time. Further, Skidmore et al states that these are problems that are particularly acute for marginalized groups when there are pressures to ensure representativeness (Skidmore et al, 2006).
These factors that relate to the social construction of community participation can be seen as vices and be identified in communities that are suffering in terms of good community based capacity building. Essentially, they can lead to the traditional form of development, meaning that produce and monetary capital becomes the leading factor in development and decision making comes on the back of elite groups that are utilising the community in terms of opportunity and privilege of skills and knowledge. However, a number of factors have been put forward to address the damaging nature of these vices that serve as good methodological tools. These include backing social rather than business orientated entrepreneurs, disconnecting and reconnecting with the elites that have the appropriate knowledge and skills, building trust throughout society and its representatives on a gradual basis, implementing goals that highlight the areas crucial to long term capacity building for participation, making participation a national priority within the political sphere and refashioning the role of local councillors so that they avoid the ease of top-down leadership and reliance on proven and established creative groups (Skidmore et al, 2006).
2.3 Models of Empowerment
Empowerment of the community is clearly an important issue in relation to the community. Empowerment is crucial to any kind of autonomy as being emasculated or subjugated means that the action being taken is not done so on the basis of the community. From a social perspective, empowerment can be seen in relation to a number of the factors brought about throughout the sections relating to both capacity building and participation. Essentially, the marginalisation that occurs that both diminish participation and the potential to generate capacity on a communal scale is indicative of the lack of empowerment a community may have. Marginalisation refers to either the overt or covert way in which people are pushed aside and configured in relation to the desires and idealisations of the group. Essentially, those perceived as having a lack of the desirable traits in a community or of deviating from the desired group norms come to be excluded from the process.
The conceptualisation of marginalisation stemmed from the groups and individuals who were concerned with social reform movements and the theorists who were highlighting the problems with mainstream societies. In many of the social reform movements, an emphasis was placed upon the value of self determination from a social standpoint, opposing social exclusion, alienation and the elimination of equal rights. Conversely, empowerment is the way in which such groups can establish the necessary power into which they may be able to overcome marginalisation and exclusion. In this sense, empowerment can be seen as essential to the approach adopted by community development agencies and the projects put in place in rural regions, such as Gramsar. This notion of empowerment is well expressed in the notion put forward by Chatterjee and Canda, in which it is stated that
Empowerment - process by which individuals and groups gain power, access to resources and control over their own lives. In doing so, they gain the ability to achieve their highest personal and collective aspirations and goals (Robbins, Chatterjee, Canda, 1998, p.91).
Nevertheless, the term empowerment covers a vast landscape of meanings, interpretations, definitions and disciplines ranging from psychology and philosophy to the highly commercialised self help industry and motivational sciences. In the sociological sense, empowerment is used to addresses the members of a community and the processes of social discrimination and the way in which certain facets of the community have been excluded from the decision making processes. As a methodology associated with community development, empowerment strategy can be used to assist vulnerable, formerly excluded and marginalized people to create their own non-profit organization. In relation to both the models of participation and the emphasis of building capacity through it, empowerment becomes an essential component. This is made clear by Ghai, who states that
Participation can be seen as a process of empowerment of the deprived and the excluded. This view is based on the recognition of differences in political and economic power among different social groups and classes. Participation in this sense necessitates the creation of organisations of the poor which are democratic, independent and self- reliant (Ghai, 1990)
Empowerment is crucial in realising community autonomy and a process of development based upon community participation. Without empowerment, the community leaders will soon slip back into profit orientated approaches. The relationship that occurs in this process is set amidst empowerment as participation, with an emphasis upon participation. For example, the OECD states that
Participatory development stands for partnership which is built upon the basis of dialogue among the various actors, during which the agenda is jointly set, and local views and indigenous knowledge are deliberately sought and respected. This implies negotiation rather than the dominance of an externally set project agenda. Thus people become actors instead of being beneficiaries. (OECD, 1994)
The dynamics in a typical rural community are an irony between simplicity in rural life and the complexity of the economic system that is operating (). As we have found, the initial role of the government is neither to regulate nor govern in a rural community. Rather, the emphasis is to empower local communities and assist in the social development of the region into which the state presides. In this sense, it is similar in function and obligation to the paradigm proposed by the World Bank in relation to poverty alleviation ().
Empowerment is defined in this paradigm as the expansion of assets and capabilities of poor people to participate in, negotiate with, influence, control, and hold accountable institutions that affect their lives (Narayan, 2002). Focusing on empowerment in the framework, market efficiencies can be gradually attained since this will help in narrowing the information a-symmetries known among the various stakeholders, suppliers, traders, market retailers and the producers (Naryan, 2002). The empowered stakeholders would subsequently be keen to gain access to the pertinent information before they make and specific decisions and ultimately take action. Rural roads alongside other rural infrastructure are indicative of the capacity building activities, which enable the stakeholders to access relevant information of the supply and demand chains for rural agricultural goods and services. The stakeholders can use such information in the efficient allocation of factors of production, which creates greater empowerment.
Empowerment can therefore be departmentalised into a number of discernable and effective factors culminating in a series of roles and identities among the community. Across the social strata of a rural community, the process of increasing intra-personal, interpersonal and political power so as to establish individual autonomy and action to safeguard their own lives is fundamental. The study of empowerment is therefore concerned with addressing these power dynamics and the relations between them. These main factors can be broken down again into roles, resources and economics. However, for the purposes of clarity, only a set number of major features will be outlined within three overlying sections. These are the social, the political and the economic. Although empowerment is not bound to these three factors, by conceptualising power on this basis makes it easier to address in terms of its complex constituent parts.
The social aspects of empowerment covers intra-personal and the interpersonal through the attempts to build self efficacy. Of the social factors relating to the interpersonal, the recognition of personal consciousness, decreasing self blame, the assuming of personal responsibility and the recognition of skills through developing strengths, validating, sharing in power and equality and establishing respect are identified and reviewed (). In relation to intra-personal social empowerment, the empowered community member would be the person who would work with others towards changing the oppression of society on a broader social level than the interpersonal. This includes understanding and reviewing group consciousness, making sure that the group recognises the shared feelings and experiences in the community, making sure that people in the community realise that they are not alone and establishing skills associated with mobilising the necessary local resources and being able to work to establish commonality between the various group members found within the process. The role of empowerment places a strong emphasis upon education from a social perspective, which draws attention to the social worker as a knowledge provider. The social worker is essentially a manager of the learning process, which is devised to help the client find the necessary solutions for the situations that community members find themselves in. The social worker may act as a broker, in that they may seek to educate professionals and communities about the barriers that people encounter in attaining their potential within the community.
Of the political factors, the empowered person should feel like they can advocate change policies to assist the community and its projects (). This includes the ability and knowledge required to educate and inform the public about oppression and inequality within the community. Many of the skills required for this duty is the ability to advocate on behalf of the empowered person, taking action and educating. The political as well as the social factors take into account a great deal of matter relating to the roles required in the community. Further, the roles are crucial to the Uphoff participation model. These include the role of resource consultant, the role of the sensitiser, the role of the teacher and the role of the co-operator (). Of the economic factors, the role of resource provision is significant. This links clients to the available resources so that the community may enhance their self esteem and problem solving skills in relation to need.
By linking clients to resources, the empowerment can be found economically so that the community can work towards achieving their own independence and own control over their lives. The person attributed to economic empowerment therefore helps community members to gain the knowledge and skills necessary to take control of their own lives in relation to the resources of the community. The empowered person is then able to recognize and identify their own strengths and weaknesses and the strengths and weaknesses of others.
2.4 Theoretical Frameworks and their Relation to Community Development
The majority of theoretical frameworks used in the literature review section of this report are attributed to the field of sociology. They relate to community development as they are bound to the many aspects that communities have to consider and undergo in relation to activity. Essentially, without theory there would be no rationale for undergoing the () that the community wish to undergo. Rather than trial and error, theory based upon evidence and can be translated into action with an emphasis upon knowing what to look for and what to avoid and to evaluate genuine impacts. In terms of interpreting the activity of certain groups in relation to cooperative involvement, theory is essential as recognition of the facts is ultimately meaningless without a theoretic framework from which to analyse and identify important factors from factors of a less significant nature. As community development in poor rural areas are not very well assisted by many of the traditional theoretical interpretations of success and failure, so the use of the theory in this dissertation looked to adapt to more conventional aspects that incorporated a social emphasis and highlighted the potential dangers involved.
The main framework is that supposed by Uphoff. However, it is not bound to Uphoff, as there are a number of other components used throughout. Nevertheless, the study of the region of Gramsar and its many regional developments are to be addressed in terms of cooperative involvement from a contemporary perspective. The majority of the theoretical framework outlined is based upon rural autonomy and incorporates non-governmental involvement as basing it upon governmental activity would not take into account the necessary community based structures involved. Rather, by incorporating a theoretical framework incorporating a macro environment, the resulting analysis would overlook many of the communal concepts necessary for successful development. Essentially, the economic would be dominant and the social subordinate in terms of identification of factors. Therefore, a more microscopic analysis of the society and how it is impacted by external factors, such as culture, economics and politics can be seen in relation to the environment.
The epistemological approach to the rural development of the Gramsar region in Iran is one based upon both material and ideological changes over time. However, a static analysis based upon definitive outcomes is to be abandoned as the approach is based upon the primary notion of participation rather than a definite result. A comparative analysis was also not favoured in terms of providing evidence for the success or failure of the development on going in the region. This is because the comparison would conflict with the intricate and often unique cultural, material and ideological emphases particular to the region. By utilising a Uphoff model in terms of the role players and their fluid activities, the theoretical framework could then be able to asses the development in relation to its own background.
From an ontological point of view, the analysis of the region and its development was based upon a generally democratic state of social being. That is to say that the notion of a democratically developed social structure was to be applied to the framework of the social mobility involved, without any capitalist undertone. Although the culture of Iran and the localised region were not to be overlooked, as regions do not necessarily accord to traditional democratic principles within their social norms and socio-economics, this was nevertheless incorporated into a democratic state of being in which the community was devised as being of prime importance. Therefore, evidence of opportunism and individualisation at the expense of the community was seen negatively as a potential cooperative failure just as much as people being excluded, ignored or alienated from the essential monetary goals, aims and distribution of knowledge, resources and education.
From the theoretical framework, models were to be developed throughout the dissertation to provide an explanation and tools of assessment as to the reality of the dynamics involved in the community of the ongoing rural development. As outlined, the models were those based upon contemporary thinking and research that assist in the consideration of a society and its households that seek to maximize the way in which welfare functions in the region. Further, it was devised to take into consideration the spatial distribution of welfare throughout the entire community, including those that may not be as ready to participate or not have the knowledge to understand their role within the community and its developmental projects. The spatial dimension was to be rationalised in terms of a site specific package in which interventions and decisions were to be measured against a variety of factors. The models will help to explain how inequality and poverty among rural communities can be traced to how efficient inefficient they are in relation to accessing the factors of production available to them. This will provide the theoretical framework its evidence to measure the success of the community development in the region in relation to the needs of the community.
2.5 Conceptual Framework
Before turning to the methodology section, the authors believe that the conceptual basis for the dissertation should be surmised so that the empirical approach can be understood from the outset. The best way to do this is to incorporate a conceptual framework from which the study can be actualised. Through conceptualising a number of the factors based upon the theoretical framework, some solid evidence could then be interpreted and evaluated alongside the main componential factors giving in the literary review. These include the sociological notions of participation, capacity building and empowerment. The application of the study could then begin by identifying the various actors and participants, making links between the componential notion of the community and in relation to the cooperatives involved. This is so that an application of the theoretical can be transferred into the conceptual, thus proving as practical as a number of interpretative tools. In this sense, community participation, social capital and trust as well as noting the importance of defining precisely what is meant by community participation.
The main body was broken into three sections based upon the theoretic framework of Uphoff and the componential intricacies of Hofstede, such as in the case of leadership and capacity building. The main conceptual dimensions were adopted for the conceptualisation of the community development in Gramsar. These were the political, the economic, the individual and the cultural. However, each of these concepts was conceived in relation to the social sphere. Participation, capacity building and empowerment were further divided into a number of componential factors. Participation was divided into decision making, implementation, evaluation and beneficiary. The model of capacity building was divided into community leadership, community power, skills and knowledge and community participation. The primary aim of this dissertation was to therefore construct a methodological framework that could attempt analyse the social stratification in the rural community and to address the specific involvement of cooperatives to see what degree they were successful in aiding community development in Gramsar. The major conceptual model employed in the research was informed by many different sociological theories related to social stratification, all of which were contemporary and based upon the specific social study of community development. The majority of the research and conceptual theory used throughout the literary review was quantified and qualified through either statistical evidence, such as factor analysis and multivariate regression, or observations and contemporary comparisons from similar regions. All of the conceptual variables were used in relation to the economic, social and demographic characteristics of the vulnerable rural strata in relation to the involvement of cooperatives.
Therefore, the region of Gramsar and the extent that its rural cooperatives have on extending the development of its community are assessed in terms of the cooperatives ability to facilitate a number of sociological factors. These primarily include the concepts of participation, capacity development and empowerment of the community. Within these concepts, the study will look to address the cooperatives ability to address the many sensitive issues that have been highlighted in the models of each of these concepts. In relation to participation, these include the ability to form versatile forms of leadership, the ability to create decision making processes based upon social inclusion and the ability to allow the community to implement as well as conceive of projects devised to develop. In relation to capacity building, these include the ability to adapt to communal forms of power aimed at shifting social roles across social strata to fit need the ability to distribute skills and knowledge networks so that all areas of the community are advised and have access to knowledge the ability to engage the community and its members so that people are actively participant as well as actively knowledgeable. In relation to empowerment, these include the establishment of autonomous economic, political and social structures aimed at community development.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment