Contemplating Effective Rural Development
By Nontlantla Skenjana
The South African development arena is currently facing many challenges. As the country moves to the close of the second decade, there is still glaring underdevelopment in rural areas, inequality in urban suburbs and townships and piling backlogs in all levels of service delivery. There are constant protests ranging from wage disputes to service delivery concerns and mob ‘justice’. The greater concern in all these is the violence and destruction that is caused during the protests that is further straining government’s effort to accelerate the provision of basic services to communities, economic emancipation of the South African people and create an enabling environment for community participation in development and governance.
Rural development has, in the past fifteen years, been visible at policy level with no real interventions that are directly benefiting rural communities at large. In the past, developers have erred in thought by suggesting that if the urban setting is developed, the effect will trickle down into the rural communities. However, that led to urban migration which has been detrimental in the Eastern Cape as the province is largely rural, leading to brain drain from the province and persistence of high levels of poverty. The interventions by development agencies, like the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA), the Agriculture and Rural Development Research Institute (ARDRI) of the University of Fort Hare, Ntinga OR Tambo Development Agency and AsgiSA-EC, amongst others, have become a beam of hope for rural communities. This hope has been heightened by government’s stated aim to prioritise rural development.
The risk that these interventions run is whether these interventions are sustainable. The purpose of rural development is to eradicate poverty and to establish rural economies that will be able to support and empower resident communities. It is therefore vital for rural development programmes to take into consideration all the possible factors that could influence the success of their initiatives. Swanepoel and De Beer (2006:10) identify five factors that are interdependent and must be considered for effective development to occur.
1. Political Factors
Community leadership has a crucial role in the panning out of the development process. Sud (1992: 84) quotes Iltiza Khan stating: “Leadership is thus sine qua non of success in all human activities but in a democratic system, particularly at the lower levels, it assumes greater significance and wider proportions.” Leadership has a potential to influence the process the participation of community members and championing socio-economic change. Community leaders are normally the gatekeepers to communities. There are instances where development projects have been derailed because of conflict between community leaders, particularly between traditional leadership and local government officials.
2. Social Factors
It has been said that the death of the family is the death of the community. The social dynamics of a community are very much dictated by the family units and by community structures that exist within the community. This is particularly evident in the South African communities where politics have shaped the social space of society and culture defines the social makeup of the communities.
3. Cultural Factors
The culture of a community is central to their values and morals. People, by nature, resist things that seek to change their way of doing things and are sensitive to things that infringe on their values. It is important for development programmes to consider the community’s customs, maximising on the strengths therein.
4. Economic Factors
In most rural areas there are high unemployment rates with some local municipalities recording more than 60 percent unemployment. Commercial agriculture has declined and most families rely on grants for a living. Families have to undertake informal activities, such as cattle herding and sales of grain, vegetables and liquor. The economic outlook of a community will determine the interests of the people and how many people are available to ensure the success of development projects. The absence of social infrastructure, such as roads, water and electricity, has an adverse impact on possible development interventions.
5. Psychological Factors
The way that people experience reality will impact their expectation of development projects. In a number of instances people have been exploited and this has led to greater caution in accepting development programmes. The new age of entitlement and self-gratification has led to communities not wanting to take responsibility for or ownership of development interventions from government and other development agencies. This has enhanced the severity of scarcity of resources and communities’ perception of their inability to make a positive contribution to the betterment of their situation. This means that communities have to first go through a mindset change management process prior to accepting and taking ownership of a development project.
The consideration of the above factors will provide the necessary foundation for the implementation of rural development programmes. These are re-entrenched by Aziz (1978:99) who further sums them up as the economic, social and political components of development. It must be understood that unless rural development programmes provide a platform for sustainable rural livelihoods they will not have the desired impact. The accepted general definition of sustainable development is that of using currently available resources without compromising the use of future generations (WSSD: 2004). This means that it needs the cooperation of the current generations and for them to take responsibility for the use of all resources under their custody. Aziz (1978: 91) states that the objective of all development is the provision of basic needs and supporting the economic activities of the communities.
Aziz (1978:98) introduces a model that aims:
“To organise, develop and utilise the available resources of land, water and manpower in such a manner that the entire rural population dependent on these resources has an equitable opportunity to meet, as a minimum, their basic needs of food, clothing and shelter with reasonable facilities for education and health and can live together in a positive and healthy social environment.”
This is the crux of rural development and touches on all the above factors of the development environment. For effective rural development management that is sustainable, Singh (2003: 133) argues in agreement with Uphoff et al that it should be participatory; responsibility and authority must be shared amongst programme members and beneficiaries. He further states that some management roles have to be transferred to the community so that they may share its goals, provide some of the resources and contribute to their management. Singh identifies two areas of focus that are indicators for the effective management of rural development: people management and project management. The factors raised by Singh are in agreement with those raised by Swanepoel and De Beer (2006:28-35), which are as follows:
The Human Orientation
This speaks more to the people management component. It includes the ability of people to realise their inner potential while working to fulfil their physical needs, thus enabling them to achieve their own social development as alluded to by Aziz (1978:103). It speaks to open communication between all stakeholders to enhance accountability and responsibility. It also takes into consideration the institutional structures that exist within a community making it easier to coordinate activities.
Participation
People involvement and participation is in line with the development facilitation legislation and also entrenched in the Municipal Systems Act. It is a platform that can be used not only for the sake of consultation, but for mind sharing and change. It provides space to explore alternatives and to consider indigenous knowledge and wealth that could be useful for sustainable development. It also entails the strengthening of the social fibre through creating space for co-operative participation in activities that will speed up development and adaptation to current technologies
Empowerment
Swanepoel and De Beer (2006: 30) state that empowerment is a mixture between the right to make decisions and the ability to make decisions. Therefore, empowerment goes beyond training and capacity building to the actual application of that capacity and training for the effective management of rural development programmes. It is not limited to training provision, but also shapes the texture of society (Singh, 2003). It enables the people to monitor progress, evaluate the programmes and strategise on what can be done.
Ownership
Ownership deals with the ability to make and sustain decisions. It speaks to the accessibility of the programme to its beneficiaries. Rural communities need to take responsibility for diversifying its activities to ensure increasing social productivity in a growing population. This requires the communities to be able to manage the programmes effectively, efficiently and economically. It also hands over the responsibility for the sustainable use of natural, capital and human resources.
Release
This entails the actual effective addressing of the problem. Primarily, the objective of development is poverty eradication and a better life for all people. It entails the ensuring of the establishment of the necessary infrastructure, such as road and information networks, water and the appropriate building structures, to create an environment conducive to rural development. It entails the rural development programmes being able to create employment and generate income that can sustain the households within the community. It calls for public accountability and transparency and a political and administrative capacity to link the rural economy with the larger economy – providing leadership and guidance without curbing local participation (Singh, 2003).
These factors touch on the three concepts identified by Chambers and Conway (1991: 22-23), those of enhancing capability, improving equity and increasing social sustainability.
Primarily, rural development programmes must be fitted to the people, not people being fitted to rural development programmes (Servaes J et al, 1996). The process of development can be long and painstaking. It needs diligence from the implementers, careful consideration of the development environment and an understanding of the people and the projects to be implemented such that effective rural development can be achieved and sustained.
References
• Aziz S. 1978. Rural Development: Learning from China. The Macmillan Press Ltd, London
• Chambers R. & Conway G.R. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. Presented as IDS Discussion Paper 296, December 1991. Institute for Development Studies.
• Servaes J., Jacobson T.L. & White S.A. (Eds). 1996. Participatory Communication for Social Change. Sage Publications, India.
• Singh S.P., 2003. Planning and Management for Rural Development. Mittal Publications, New Delhi
• Sud O.C. 1992. Administrative Problems of Rural Development in India. Kanishka Publishing House, Delhi
• Swanepoel H, De Beer F. 2006 (4th Ed). Community Development: Breaking the Cycle. Juta & Co, South Africa
The South African development arena is currently facing many challenges. As the country moves to the close of the second decade, there is still glaring underdevelopment in rural areas, inequality in urban suburbs and townships and piling backlogs in all levels of service delivery. There are constant protests ranging from wage disputes to service delivery concerns and mob ‘justice’. The greater concern in all these is the violence and destruction that is caused during the protests that is further straining government’s effort to accelerate the provision of basic services to communities, economic emancipation of the South African people and create an enabling environment for community participation in development and governance.
Rural development has, in the past fifteen years, been visible at policy level with no real interventions that are directly benefiting rural communities at large. In the past, developers have erred in thought by suggesting that if the urban setting is developed, the effect will trickle down into the rural communities. However, that led to urban migration which has been detrimental in the Eastern Cape as the province is largely rural, leading to brain drain from the province and persistence of high levels of poverty. The interventions by development agencies, like the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA), the Agriculture and Rural Development Research Institute (ARDRI) of the University of Fort Hare, Ntinga OR Tambo Development Agency and AsgiSA-EC, amongst others, have become a beam of hope for rural communities. This hope has been heightened by government’s stated aim to prioritise rural development.
The risk that these interventions run is whether these interventions are sustainable. The purpose of rural development is to eradicate poverty and to establish rural economies that will be able to support and empower resident communities. It is therefore vital for rural development programmes to take into consideration all the possible factors that could influence the success of their initiatives. Swanepoel and De Beer (2006:10) identify five factors that are interdependent and must be considered for effective development to occur.
1. Political Factors
Community leadership has a crucial role in the panning out of the development process. Sud (1992: 84) quotes Iltiza Khan stating: “Leadership is thus sine qua non of success in all human activities but in a democratic system, particularly at the lower levels, it assumes greater significance and wider proportions.” Leadership has a potential to influence the process the participation of community members and championing socio-economic change. Community leaders are normally the gatekeepers to communities. There are instances where development projects have been derailed because of conflict between community leaders, particularly between traditional leadership and local government officials.
2. Social Factors
It has been said that the death of the family is the death of the community. The social dynamics of a community are very much dictated by the family units and by community structures that exist within the community. This is particularly evident in the South African communities where politics have shaped the social space of society and culture defines the social makeup of the communities.
3. Cultural Factors
The culture of a community is central to their values and morals. People, by nature, resist things that seek to change their way of doing things and are sensitive to things that infringe on their values. It is important for development programmes to consider the community’s customs, maximising on the strengths therein.
4. Economic Factors
In most rural areas there are high unemployment rates with some local municipalities recording more than 60 percent unemployment. Commercial agriculture has declined and most families rely on grants for a living. Families have to undertake informal activities, such as cattle herding and sales of grain, vegetables and liquor. The economic outlook of a community will determine the interests of the people and how many people are available to ensure the success of development projects. The absence of social infrastructure, such as roads, water and electricity, has an adverse impact on possible development interventions.
5. Psychological Factors
The way that people experience reality will impact their expectation of development projects. In a number of instances people have been exploited and this has led to greater caution in accepting development programmes. The new age of entitlement and self-gratification has led to communities not wanting to take responsibility for or ownership of development interventions from government and other development agencies. This has enhanced the severity of scarcity of resources and communities’ perception of their inability to make a positive contribution to the betterment of their situation. This means that communities have to first go through a mindset change management process prior to accepting and taking ownership of a development project.
The consideration of the above factors will provide the necessary foundation for the implementation of rural development programmes. These are re-entrenched by Aziz (1978:99) who further sums them up as the economic, social and political components of development. It must be understood that unless rural development programmes provide a platform for sustainable rural livelihoods they will not have the desired impact. The accepted general definition of sustainable development is that of using currently available resources without compromising the use of future generations (WSSD: 2004). This means that it needs the cooperation of the current generations and for them to take responsibility for the use of all resources under their custody. Aziz (1978: 91) states that the objective of all development is the provision of basic needs and supporting the economic activities of the communities.
Aziz (1978:98) introduces a model that aims:
“To organise, develop and utilise the available resources of land, water and manpower in such a manner that the entire rural population dependent on these resources has an equitable opportunity to meet, as a minimum, their basic needs of food, clothing and shelter with reasonable facilities for education and health and can live together in a positive and healthy social environment.”
This is the crux of rural development and touches on all the above factors of the development environment. For effective rural development management that is sustainable, Singh (2003: 133) argues in agreement with Uphoff et al that it should be participatory; responsibility and authority must be shared amongst programme members and beneficiaries. He further states that some management roles have to be transferred to the community so that they may share its goals, provide some of the resources and contribute to their management. Singh identifies two areas of focus that are indicators for the effective management of rural development: people management and project management. The factors raised by Singh are in agreement with those raised by Swanepoel and De Beer (2006:28-35), which are as follows:
The Human Orientation
This speaks more to the people management component. It includes the ability of people to realise their inner potential while working to fulfil their physical needs, thus enabling them to achieve their own social development as alluded to by Aziz (1978:103). It speaks to open communication between all stakeholders to enhance accountability and responsibility. It also takes into consideration the institutional structures that exist within a community making it easier to coordinate activities.
Participation
People involvement and participation is in line with the development facilitation legislation and also entrenched in the Municipal Systems Act. It is a platform that can be used not only for the sake of consultation, but for mind sharing and change. It provides space to explore alternatives and to consider indigenous knowledge and wealth that could be useful for sustainable development. It also entails the strengthening of the social fibre through creating space for co-operative participation in activities that will speed up development and adaptation to current technologies
Empowerment
Swanepoel and De Beer (2006: 30) state that empowerment is a mixture between the right to make decisions and the ability to make decisions. Therefore, empowerment goes beyond training and capacity building to the actual application of that capacity and training for the effective management of rural development programmes. It is not limited to training provision, but also shapes the texture of society (Singh, 2003). It enables the people to monitor progress, evaluate the programmes and strategise on what can be done.
Ownership
Ownership deals with the ability to make and sustain decisions. It speaks to the accessibility of the programme to its beneficiaries. Rural communities need to take responsibility for diversifying its activities to ensure increasing social productivity in a growing population. This requires the communities to be able to manage the programmes effectively, efficiently and economically. It also hands over the responsibility for the sustainable use of natural, capital and human resources.
Release
This entails the actual effective addressing of the problem. Primarily, the objective of development is poverty eradication and a better life for all people. It entails the ensuring of the establishment of the necessary infrastructure, such as road and information networks, water and the appropriate building structures, to create an environment conducive to rural development. It entails the rural development programmes being able to create employment and generate income that can sustain the households within the community. It calls for public accountability and transparency and a political and administrative capacity to link the rural economy with the larger economy – providing leadership and guidance without curbing local participation (Singh, 2003).
These factors touch on the three concepts identified by Chambers and Conway (1991: 22-23), those of enhancing capability, improving equity and increasing social sustainability.
Primarily, rural development programmes must be fitted to the people, not people being fitted to rural development programmes (Servaes J et al, 1996). The process of development can be long and painstaking. It needs diligence from the implementers, careful consideration of the development environment and an understanding of the people and the projects to be implemented such that effective rural development can be achieved and sustained.
References
• Aziz S. 1978. Rural Development: Learning from China. The Macmillan Press Ltd, London
• Chambers R. & Conway G.R. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. Presented as IDS Discussion Paper 296, December 1991. Institute for Development Studies.
• Servaes J., Jacobson T.L. & White S.A. (Eds). 1996. Participatory Communication for Social Change. Sage Publications, India.
• Singh S.P., 2003. Planning and Management for Rural Development. Mittal Publications, New Delhi
• Sud O.C. 1992. Administrative Problems of Rural Development in India. Kanishka Publishing House, Delhi
• Swanepoel H, De Beer F. 2006 (4th Ed). Community Development: Breaking the Cycle. Juta & Co, South Africa