Community development is a practice pursuit aimed at creating community oriented perceptions and behaviors among individuals.
According to the United Nations Development Programme, the formation of these perceptions and behaviors in individuals is presumed to increase the standard of living for the majority of the population in a particular geographical location.
The types of perceptions and behaviors supposed to increase the standard of living for the majority of the population were first identified by Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century philosophers. For example, Immanuel Kant wrote about the need for people to relinquish some individual freedoms for the betterment of the entire society.
Adam Smith discussed the importance of balancing self-interest with social sympathy, and Auguste Comte identified the movement of people's behavior from "selfish to unselfish toil" as central to process of development.
The goal of modern community development is to create these types of community oriented behaviors and perceptions in individuals. The processes used by practitioners to generate these perceptions and behaviors typically varies between two practice models, top down and bottom-up.
As such the application of a single development model may not necessarily transform a particular community towards the realization of its development goals.
Top-down model
The top-down model has a weighty philosophical and practice history, predating the bottom-up model. The top-down model is structured around the use of professional leadership provided by external resources that plan, implement, and evaluate development programs.
Community development programs using this model typically focus on providing professional leadership to the development process coupled with supportive concrete services directed to various stakeholders.
Through the process of residents following the external leadership and accessing the services offered by the program, changes within community residents' perceptions, behaviors and ultimately their standard of living are believed to occur.
Bottom-up model of social development theory
Social development theory is considered the conceptual scheme underpinning the bottom-up model. A United States economist Blanchard outlined a set of seven strategies that are currently used to operationalize the bottom-up model of social development theory.
These strategies include: comprehensive community participation, motivating local communities, expanding learning opportunities, improving local resource management, replicating human development, increasing communication and interchange, and localizing financial access.
For development agents using the bottom-up model as structured by social development theory, participation in community wide discussions, improved opportunities to learn, and the sense of empowerment that comes with knowledge are the necessary precursors to accomplishing the stated and implied goals of community development.
Stated and implied goals
Both models, when used to structure community development programs, share a common set of stated and implied goals. These goals are: 1) to influence changes in community residents' perceptions about how to improve their standard of living; 2) to present community-oriented behaviors that are based upon the changes in community residents' perceptions; and 3) to advance the standard of living among a majority of community residents.
To accomplish these goals, programs using either the top-down or the bottom-up model require residents to acknowledge the existence of problems and to show a willingness to participate in the community development program's process.
For programs using the bottom-up model, this process features creating partnerships between community residents and professionals who provide technical support rather than leadership.
For programs using the top-down model, process is about community residents allowing professionals to provide leadership and services that support an externally created development plan.
The strengths of Top-down approach and Bottom-up approach
Evidence from various community projects suggest that the top-down approach works best when the service-delivery process is characterized by a high degree of centralization, such as in the electricity sector.
With the right policy and implementation agency in place, a top-down approach may lead to quicker implementation of various development services.
Initiatives implemented under the top-down approach also has the possibilities of scaling up faster as inter-agency co-ordination, as well as requisite finances may be 140 more easily available to government agencies when compared to a decentralized bottom-up approach.
Some elements in the bottom-up approach that contribute to increased effectiveness in service delivery are: proximity of the alternative development service provider to target groups like slum dwellers, sensitivity to community needs, flexible payment options, setting up of office within the community, and consumer education and community empowerment through training workshops and seminars.
For instance, a bottom-up approach in sanitation pays specific attention to the needs of women and children by providing them with separate facilities that offer privacy and safety.
As a result of community participation, there is greater ownership of the facility by the community, which results in better maintenance and durability of the infrastructure itself.
Criticism of Top-down approach and Bottom-up approach
One of the main criticisms of the top-down approach in terms of service provision is the lack of community involvement in planning and sensitivity towards the specific needs of the community.
In the top-down approach, there is very little room for customization to meet community needs. Evidence points to the fact that, although connectivity has been given importance, other dimensions of access are grossly ignored. Governments applying the top up model are always ad hoc in their way of doing things, with programmes also implemented with a political agenda in mind.
The primary reason for this could be that slums and their legal status constitute a point of contention with several governments. Service provision in slums are entangled in several legal problems that restrict governments to provide them with basic services.
While these constraints need to be overlooked in light of the socio-economic and health costs of not having these services at all, government-led top down approaches are constrained by administrative limitations.
Traditional top-down approaches also suffer from the lack of beneficiary participation, which results in weak ownership and maintenance of the infrastructure created. However, with increased commitment in the form of poor policies and some level of community involvement, government-driven top-down approaches can yield positive results.
A major limitation of the bottom-up approach is the restricted scope for scaling up of operation. For example, the familiarity of most alternative service providers may be restricted to the few communities in which they are active.
While they may be effective in those specific communities, they might not be able to achieve the same level of effectiveness in a different locality. Therefore, scaling up of the programme in different geographical regions would be problematic.
Apart from the above, alternative service providers have the arduous task of interfacing with government authorities to seek clearances and permission, which may lead to unwanted tension and delays. This, in turn, could delay the provision of infrastructure and cause financial losses as well.
One of the main elements of the bottom-up approach is community participation. Mobilizing the community to come forth with their contribution or share ideas in a consultation can be a long, drawn-out process and can run into community-level politics, which has the potential to derail the initiative.
Projects that mandate community participation are more likely to face delays in the initial stages than a top-down approach.
The way forward
The limitations of both these approaches can be overcome when there is a synergy by adopting a partnership approach where the government, community and the alternative service providers work together to improve the livelihood of various members of the community.
The writer of this article, Dr Jonai Wabwire is a lecturer, Kisii University,
Department of Communication, Media and Information Sciences.
Tel. 0710619475
Email: [email protected]
