Social Development

Theory and Practice

James Midgley

• Editorial: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Año: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781446293287
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Politica e relazioni internazionali
• Categoría: Politica sociale

Walking through social development's key theoretical principles and practice strategies, this book shows how it promotes peoples' wellbeing not only in the Global South, where it first emerged, but in the Western countries as well. It covers:

• Definitions and an historical evolution of social development
• Key theoretical debates around social well-being, human rights and social justice
• Social development practice such as human capital interventions, community development and cooperatives, asset building, employment creation policies and programmes, microenterprises and social planning among others
• Future challenges; global poverty, international aid and trade, and global inequality, conflict and injustice.

Complete with international examples drawn from around the world, Social Development: Theory and Practice demonstrates how social development theory translates into practical application. This book is essential reading for students in development studies, social policy, public administration and social work, and for policymakers and development practitioners everywhere.

James Midgley is the Harry and Riva Specht Professor of Public Social Services at the School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley.

PART I

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

1

DEFINING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Even though the term social development has been in regular use for more than half a century, it is still poorly defined. Today, it is used to mean different things. It is often associated with community-based projects in the developing countries such as microenterprises, women’s groups, cooperatives, maternal and child welfare programmes, the provision of safe drinking water and the construction of schools and clinics. It also refers to government policies and programmes concerned with the ‘social aspect’ of development, such as reducing poverty, increasing literacy, combating malnutrition and improving access to health and education. This usage reflects international efforts to promote the Millennium Development Goals, which were adopted at the United Nations Millennium Summit in New York in 2000. In contrast to this practical approach, the term is also used to connote the achievement of lofty ideals, such as progress, social integration, peace and social justice.

Scholars working in different academic fields have also used the term in different ways. It is closely associated with development studies, where it is perhaps most frequently employed, but it is also influenced by scholarly work in sociology, social work and social policy. Sociologists have used the term to describe a process of ‘guided’ social change that improves society while some social workers have linked social development to community-based projects. Some have also invoked abstract ideals to characterise the field. As is well known, psychologists employ the term to refer to childhood development. It has also been used in social policy to refer to social improvements brought about by government ‘welfare state’ initiatives and it also characterises recent discussions among social policy writers on what is called ‘welfare developmentalism’.

This chapter reviews a number of definitions that have emerged in practice and in academic circles over the years. It offers its own definition and then discusses the key features of this definition; this usage is compatible with the way the term is used in development studies and development practice in the Global South. However, it was noted in the Introduction to this book that social development has also attracted attention in the Western nations, and in some cases, social development interventions such as microenterprises and conditional cash transfers have been replicated in Western countries. Although often regarded as a unique ‘Third Worldist’ approach, social development is now being adopted in many different parts of the world.

Since the different approaches to definitions discussed in this chapter were formulated in an historic context, some of the issues raised here will be elaborated in the book’s following chapter which traces the history of social development. As will be shown, the concept of social development evolved in the Global South after the Second World War and reflected the preoccupation of colonial officials and nationalist independence leaders with economic modernisation and raising standards of living. The definition of social development that emerged at the time also reflected conceptual and ideological interpretations that will be examined in more depth in Part II of this book.

Approaches to definition

The term ‘social development’ is comprised of two words – social and development –both of which inform the way it has been defined. Both should be examined in more depth. Today, the term social is used by sociologists and other social scientists to refer to human interactions and the complex phenomena that arise from these interactions, such as a large number of groups and associations including the family, neighbourhood associations, formal organisations, communities and even societies. These interactions also give rise to social networks, values, cultures and institutions. The term also has a welfare connotation which alludes to people’s well-being and collective efforts to improve social conditions. Both meanings of the term have influenced the way the concept of social development has been used.

The second word, development, has a dynamic connotation and refers to a process of change, growth, progress or evolution. Although originally used to connote a process of societal change, the term ‘development’ has been primarily linked to economic modernisation in the developing countries after the Second World War, where it was originally defined as involving growth and industrialisation. This definition has now been broadened to connote a multifaceted process that comprises social, cultural, gender, political, environmental as well as economic dimensions. It is in this context that the concept of social development has been popularised and will be used in this book.

However, the term ‘social development’ was not originally used in this way. Instead, it was first employed by sociologists in the late nineteenth century to refer to the processes by which societies evolve from a traditional or ‘primitive’ state to a modern, advanced level of ‘civilisation’. This approach was inspired by Darwin’s work and his discovery of the way natural selection shapes the complex form of biological life that evolved since primeval times. Sociologists such as Spencer and Sumner and anthropologists such as Morgan and Tylor drew on Darwin’s ideas to claim that similar processes govern societal evolution, or ‘social development’ as it was called. A major figure in evolutionary sociology at the time was Hobhouse, whose book Social Development (1924) popularised the term and informed subsequent thinking in the field. He challenged the views of the Social Darwinists, proposing the adoption of social reforms that would modify the harsh effects of social change on vulnerable people. He also disagreed with Marx and Engels, who argued that meaningful change will only be brought about through revolution driven by historical forces. Together with social liberals in Britain, known as the ‘New Liberals’, he helped inspire the social legislation and social reforms introduced by the British government in the early years of the twentieth century. There were similar developments in the United States where these ideas were promoted by reformers known as the ‘Progressives’. Hobhouse’s approach to defining social development was subsequently augmented by sociologists concerned with social planning and with what was sometimes called ‘guided’ social change (Bennis et al., 1961; Chodak, 1973; North, 1932).

It is likely that these ideas influenced the first social development practitioners who launched community-based projects in the rural areas of African and Asian countries in the years following the Second World War. Although development planners and policymakers in these countries drew on ideas from the new field of development economics, those engaged in social welfare activities were likely to turn to sociologists for inspiration and find that notions of evolutionary change and social planning offered a helpful conceptual framework for their work. As will be shown in the next chapter, expatriate social workers who established the first government welfare services in the British colonial territories laid the foundations for social development by introducing community-based projects that combined economic and social activities and emphasised participation in development. Community development was also inspired by the rural reconstruction projects of Gandhi and Tagore in India, which sought to address the problem of rural poverty at the local level.

The colonial authorities in London approved of these developments and it was in this context the term ‘social development’ was embraced by the British government. In 1954, at a meeting in Cambridge of welfare administrators from different parts of the Empire, it was formally adopted to refer to social programmes and policies which would, as one official document put it, result in ‘nothing less than the whole process of change and advancement of a territory, considered in terms of the progressive well-being of society and the individual’ (United Kingdom, Colonial Office, 1954, p. 14). Although this ambitious goal did not accurately reflect the practical community development programmes established at the time, it was the first attempt to formulate a formal definition of social development. It also reflected the desire to promote the modernisation of the newly independent developing countries.

Other scholars, including sociologists and social workers, subsequently defined social development in similar lofty terms. One of the first formal definitions to be offered by a social work scholar, Paiva (1977, p. 323), used this approach to suggest that social development is ‘the development of the capacity of people to work continuously for their own and society’s welfare’. Another example comes from Omer (1979, p. 15), who defined social development as a process that brings about ‘an integrated, balanced and unified social and economic development of society, and one that gives expression to the values of human dignity, equality and social justice’. She goes on to say that social development seeks ‘to create humanistic societies committed to achieving peace in the world and progress for all people’ (p. 16). A more recent example is Aspalter and Singh’s (2008, p. 2) definition of social development as planned and directed change that ‘enables people to achieve greater happiness, satisfaction and a peaceful life’.

While definitions of this kind are unobjectionable, they fail to identify the projects and programmes that can achieve these abstract goals and are of limited practical value. Accordingly, they have been criticised by some scholars for offering a set of ‘nebulous aspirations and heuristic notions’ that are ‘hortatory rather than prescriptive’ (Lloyd, 1982, pp. 44–45). Nevertheless, social workers played a major role in spreading social development ideas. In 1972, they founded the International Consortium for Social Development, which launched Social Development Issues, a leading journal in the field, and actively promoted social development for many years through professional conferences and exchange programmes (Meinert, 1991). These contributions built on the pioneering work of the social workers who introduced community development projects in the Global South during the colonial period.

Some social workers have formulated definitions that are less abstract and hortatory and more focused on practical matters. Hollister (1977) and Spergel (1978) equate social development with community organisation, policy analysis and programme administration and, in a more recent definition, Miah (2008) emphasises the role of microenterprise and microfinance activities. Midgley and Conley (2010) also highlight the practical aspects of social development and urge the adoption of what they call ‘investment strategies’ in social work practice. Today, most social workers involved in social development are primarily concerned with community-based interventions that mobilise local people to participate in a variety of projects designed to improve local conditions. Although Pawar and Cox (2010) also approach the field from a social work perspective and emphasise community-level interventions, they deal with a number of conceptual issues that have broader relevance to the field.

Scholars in mainstream development studies who have offered definitions of social development seldom recognise social workers’ contribution and some, such as Green (2002), dismiss what she described as a ‘welfarist conception’, which she alleges is primarily concerned with the provision of services to needy people. However, she appears to be unaware of the contribution of social workers to community development and social policy which transcends a limited concern for poor people. Her own definition draws on an eclectic mix of ideas from social anthropology, social policy, public management and development studies, and links social development to the work of international development agencies concerned with poverty alleviation, meeting basic needs and enhancing community participation in development projects and programmes. This is similar to definitions formulated by social workers and, as noted earlier, social development is often associated with community activities of this kind.

The community, project-based approach to defining social development has been augmented by the community participation approach (Choudry et al., 2012; Cornwall, 2011; United Nations, 1975), which contends that meaningful social change can only be achieved when the social structures that perpetuate poverty, inequality and oppression are challenged by ordinary people and ultimately dismantled. This definition prioritises activism, especially at the local level, and concepts such as conscientization, ‘empowerment’ and ‘transformative social change’ are widely used to challenge those who use their wealth and power to oppress women, ethnic minorities and the poor. Grassroots community activism is augmented by social action at the national level and large organisations, such as the Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) in India (Chen, 2008) and the Industrial Areas Foundation in the United States (Chambers, 2003), are often cited as an example of this approach. Although many non-governmental and faith-based organisations involved in social development are not overtly committed to activism, they are often commended for offering an alternative to government intervention which is widely regarded as bureaucratic and ‘top-down’. Cooperatives are another example of how people can engage collaboratively in economic activities. As will be shown later in this book, they have an ancient history and have played a major role in social development over the years. Popular social movements that campaign for progressive social change also make a major contribution. Although these movements are characterised by a high degree of spontaneity that reflects the anger and desperation of oppressed people, Smith (2008) points out that their energies are often harnessed by organisations that mobilise popular support, lobby and use a variety of activist tactics to affect change. As Wilson and Whitmore (2000) report with reference to Latin America, social movements have played a major role in promoting social development in the region. Indeed, their definition equates social development with the activities of popular movements and activist groups.

A contrasting approach to definition focuses on the role of governments. This approach defines social development as a process by which improvements in social well-being are brought about through social planning, a variety of legislative mandates, subsidies, redistributive fiscal policies and the activities of social sectoral ministries responsible for education, health, housing and social services. It draws on the idea that democratic governments committed to improving the welfare of their citizens can utilise scientific knowledge and the expertise of technocrats to achieve this goal. This approach is rooted in the writings of Saint Simon and Comte in the nineteenth century and was elaborated by the American economist Veblen as well as other interventionists, including Hobhouse and Keynes. It has informed state directed social development for many years and was championed by leading development economists, such as Myrdal (1970, 1971) and Seers (1969). As will be shown in the next chapter, Myrdal made a major contribution to articulating a statist approach to social development exemplified by what was called the ‘unified socio-economic planning’ approach.

Although often criticised for being bureaucratic and top-down, governments have also sponsored community social development programmes and projects that have, to varying degrees, promoted people’s participation in development. It was noted earlier that the first community development programmes, which were established in the 1950s, combined government resources and expertise with local involvement to create community centres, clinics, feeder roads, schools, water supplies and other projects. At this time, the theoretical principles of ‘self-determination’ and ‘self-help’ were articulated to provide a normative basis for community development and, although they proved difficult to implement, have continued to shape community development practice. A major problem was the bureaucratisation of community development and its expropriation by party officials and local elites who often redirected community development resources to serve their own interests. With the subsequent involvement of grassroots organisations and non-governmental organisations, these problems have to some extent been mitigated.

Governments also contributed to social development by establishing social planning units within their central economic development planning agencies and linking the policies of sectoral ministries, such as health, education and social welfare, to national plans. They also enhanced the developmental relevance of the ministries of social welfare that had inherited a remedial, urban-based approach from the colonial period. It was in this context that many governments renamed their social welfare ministries as ministries of social development. This innovation follows the first United Nations meeting of welfare ministers in New York in 1968, when many governments declared their intention to introduce ‘developmental’ welfare programmes and policies (United Nations, 1969).

The statist definition of social development also reflects the work of international development agencies such as the United Nations, the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The World Bank has also made a major contribution but, as will be shown in the next chapter, its original commitment to government-sponsored social development was replaced in the 1980s by a market-based approach that reflected the growing influence of market liberal ideas as well as changing economic, social and political realities. Nevertheless, the major international development organisations have continued to support government efforts to initiate, direct and fund social development programmes. Government involvement finds expression in the Commitments adopted by the member states of the United Nations at the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995, and in the subsequent adoption of the Millennium Declaration of 2000, which enshrines the Millennium Development Goals. These are comprised of eight broad goals which are broken down into 18 specific targets, including the reduction of poverty, improvements in school attendance, the promotion of gender equity, reductions in child and maternal mortality and enhanced international cooperation (United Nations, 2005). Today, the Millennium Development Goals exemplify the statist definition of social development.

Definitions by a number of academics also reveal a preference for government intervention. The first major book on social development, published by Jones and Pandey in 1981, favoured a statist approach but also incorporated a community development and other non-governmental initiatives. In this book, Pandey defined social development as a process that results in the ‘improvement of the quality of life of people … a more equitable distribution of resources … and special measures that will enable marginal groups and communities to move into the mainstream’ (Pandey, 1981, p. 33). This definition is in many respects similar to the ideals expressed in the Copenhagen Declaration some 15 years later, and it also emphasises the importance of national interventions through the agency of the state. As mentioned earlier, Myrdal and Seers drew attention to the fact that the people of the developing nations were not uniformly poor. While many lived in rural poverty or eked out an existence in the rapidly expanding urban informal settlements, others enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle comparable to that of the upper middle class in the Western nations. The development process, they concluded, had disproportionately benefited political and business elites, the military and the senior civil service, creating a situation known as ‘distorted’ or ‘uneven’ or ‘unbalanced’ development. This occurs when the income and wealth generated by economic growth accrues disproportionately to elites and to the middle class but fails to raise the standards of living of a sizeable proportion of the population and especially the poorest groups. This idea was developed by Midgley (1995), who argued that the distortions of development can be addressed by harmonising economic and social interventions within a pragmatic, state-directed approach. However, this involves redistributive policies that channel public resources to the population as a whole through social investments (Midgley, 1999).

Although the United Nations and most other international development agencies use the term social development, the UNDP prefers the term human development. This term is often regarded as a synonym for social development but a closer reading of the organisation’s definition reveals an emphasis on individual choice and responsibility (UNDP, 1990) which is not emphasised by the other agencies. The UNDP’s definition is contained in the first of a series of influential reports published in 1990 that reflect a preference for interventions that focus on individual households which, the organisation points out, can make rational decisions to enhance their own well-being. As the report puts it, human development is a process of promoting freedom by ‘enlarging people’s choices’ ...

Índice

• Cover Page
• Halftitle
• SAGE
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• About the Author
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• PART I  UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
• PART II  THE THEORY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
• PART III  SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PRACTICE
• PART IV.  CONCLUSION
• Glossary
• References
• Index