Module 4

POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT

Lesson 1 Theories of Poverty

Lesson 2 Mainstream Development Models
Lesson 3 People Centered Development

Lesson 1 Theories of Poverty

(Reference material: Theories of Poverty and Anti-Poverty Programs in Community
Development, Ted K. Bradshaw, RPRC Working Paper, February, 2006)
Poverty Definitions
Poverty in its most general sense is the lack of necessities. Basic food, shelter, medical care,
and safety are generally thought necessary based on shared values of human dignity. However,
what is a necessity to one person is not uniformly a necessity to others. Needs may be relative
to what is possible and are based on social definition and past experience (Sen, 1999).
Valentine (1968) says that “the essence of poverty is inequality. In slightly different words, the
basic meaning of poverty is relative deprivation.” A social (relative) definition of poverty allows
community flexibility in addressing pressing local concerns, while objective definitions allow
tracking progress and comparing one area to another.
The most common “objective” definition of poverty is the statistical measure established by the
federal government as the annual income needed for a family to survive. The “poverty line” was
initially created in 1963 by Mollie Orshansky at the U.S. Department of Agriculture based on
three times her estimate of what a family would have to spend for an adequate but far from
lavish diet. According to Michael Darby (1997:4), the very definition of poverty was political,
aimed to benchmark the progress of poverty programs for the War on Poverty. Adjusted for
inflation, the poverty line for a family of four was $17,050 income in 2000 according to the US
Census. Most poverty scholars identify many problems with this definition related to concepts of
family, cash income, treatment of taxes, special work related expenses, or regional differences
in the cost of living (Blank 1997:10; Quigley, 2003).
Regardless of how we look at the “science” of poverty, or what O’Connor calls the “knowledge
of poverty,” it is essential to retain focus on the fact that the definition of poverty and the policies
addressing it are all shaped by political biases and values:
It is this disparity of status and interest that make poverty research an inescapably political act:
it is an exercise of power, in this case of an educated elite to categorize, stigmatize, but above
all to neutralize the poor and disadvantaged through analysis that obscures the political nature
of social and economic inequality (O’Connor 2001:12).

1
In this sense, political agendas are the overriding factors in poverty that not only influence the
choice of theory of poverty but the very definition of poverty to be explained by each theory.
Powerful interests manage how poverty is discussed and what is being done about it;
unfortunately this paper can only identify the politicization of theories of poverty rather than
separate it out for analysis.
Sources and approach
The approach in this paper is to review strategically selected programs and approaches used by
communities to address poverty and in the United States. The approach starts by examining
some of the most significant recent books and articles (and several classics) that discuss
poverty in America2, and then it distills from them the theoretical perspectives that are most
central to their analysis. The task here is not to do a complete review of all the literature on
poverty, as that includes thousands of items and is beyond the scope of this paper. Nor is the
task to distill all the recent abundance of information on poverty, especially the empirical
evidence of who the poor are and what their condition is.
I approach poverty programs from the community development perspective, addressing the
range of programs available to a typical community. Since this portfolio of programs changes
rapidly over time and from community to community, I have attempted to generalize and build
grounded theory that captures the range, even if it blurs some details. I have been guided in this
task by the recent books on poverty policy such as Sar Levitan’s colleagues whose inventory of
“Programs in Aid of the Poor,” (Levitan et al, 2003) catalogued many federal programs available
to local areas. I also based my analysis on those programs I have known over years of
community based work. Simply put, the task of this paper is to look in the literature for
theoretical explanations of poverty that link up with the practices that are at the core of
community development.
For each of the five theories that make up the bulk of the poverty literature, I have identified the
set of variables that are most significantly associated with causing poverty according to that
theory, the mechanisms by these variables cause poverty, the potential strategies that can be
addressed in response to poverty, and finally community based examples of how anti-poverty
programs based on that particular theory are implemented.
Five theories of Poverty in Contemporary Literature
Recent literature on poverty uniformly acknowledges different theories of poverty, but the
literature has classified these theories in multiple ways (for example, compare Blank, 2003;
Goldsmith and Blakely, 1992; Jennings and Kushnick,1999; Rodgers, 2000; Schiller, 1989;
Shaw, 1996). Virtually all authors distinguish between theories that root the cause of poverty in
individual deficiencies (conservative) and theories that lay the cause on broader social
phenomena (liberal or progressive). Ryan (1976) addresses this dichotomy in terms of “blaming
the victim.” Goldsmith and Blakely, for example distinguish “Poverty as pathology” from “poverty
as incident or accident” and “poverty as structure.” Schiller (1989:2-3) explains it in terms of
“flawed characters, restricted opportunity, and Big Brother.” Jennings (1999) reviews a number
of variants on these individual vs. society conceptions, giving emphasis to racial and political
dynamics. Rank is very clear: “the focus on individual attributes as the cause of poverty is
misplaced and misdirected.” Structural failings of the economic, political, and social system are

2
causes instead. (Rank 2004:50) The various theories are divergent, and each results in a
different type of community development intervention strategy.
1. Poverty Caused by Individual Deficiencies.
This first theory of poverty is a large and multifaceted set of explanations that focus on the
individual as responsible for their poverty situation. Typically, politically conservative
theoreticians blame individuals in poverty for creating their own problems, and argue that with
harder work and better choices the poor could have avoided (and now can remedy) their
problems. Other variations of the individual theory of poverty ascribe poverty to lack of genetic
qualities such as intelligence that are not so easily reversed.
The belief that poverty stems from individual deficiencies is old. Religious doctrine that equated
wealth with the favor of God was central to the Protestant reformation (Weber 2001) and blind,
crippled, or deformed people were believed to be punished by God for either their or their
parents’ sins. With the emergence of the concept of inherited intelligence in the 19th century,
the eugenics movement went so far as to rationalize poverty and even sterilization for those
who appeared to have limited abilities. Books like Hurrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve
(1994) are modern uses of this explanation. Rainwater (1970:16) critically discusses
individualistic theories of poverty as a “moralizing perspective” and notes that the poor are
“afflicted with the mark of Cain. They are meant to suffer, indeed must suffer, because of their
moral failings. They live in a deserved hell on earth.” Rainwater goes on to say that it is difficult
to overestimate the extent to which this perspective (incorrectly) under-girds our visions of
poverty, including the perspective of the disinherited themselves.
Ironically, neo-classical economics reinforces individualistic sources of poverty. The core
premise of this dominant paradigm for the study of the conditions leading to poverty is that
individuals seek to maximize their own well being by making choices and investments, and that
(assuming that they have perfect information) they seek to maximize their well being. When
some people choose short term and low-payoff returns, economic theory holds the individual
largely responsible for their individual choices--for example to forego college education or other
training that will lead to better paying jobs in the future.
The economic theory that the poor lack incentives for improving their own conditions is a
recurrent theme in articles that blame the welfare system’s generosity on the perpetuation of
poverty. In a Cato Journal article, economists Gwartney and McCaleb argue that the years of
the war on poverty actually increased poverty (adjusted for noncash transfers) among working
age adults in spite of unprecedented increases in welfare expenditures. They conclude that “the
application of simple economic theory” suggests that the problem lies in the war on poverty
programs: They [welfare programs] have introduced a perverse incentive structure, one that
penalizes self-improvement and protects individuals against the consequences of their own bad
choices. (1985: 7)
This and similar arguments that cast the poor as a “moral hazard” also hold that “the problem of
poverty continues to fester not because we are failing to do enough, but because we are doing
too much that is counterproductive” (Gwartney and McCaleb 1985:15). Their economic model
would solve poverty by assuring that the penalty of poverty was great enough that none would
choose it (and welfare would be restricted to the truly disabled or otherwise unable to work).

3
A less widely critiqued version of the individualistic theory of poverty comes from American
values of individualism—the Horatio Alger myth that any individual can succeed by skills and
hard work, and that motivation and persistence are all that are required to achieve success (see
Asen, 2002:29-34). Self-help literature reinforces the belief that individuals fail because they do
not try hard enough. Frank Bettger (1977:187-8), in the Dale Carnegie tradition, tells how he got
a list of self-improvement goals on which to focus and became one of the most successful and
highly paid salesmen in America. He goes on to say that anyone can succeed by an easy
formula--focused goals and hard work. This is the message of hundreds of self-help books,
articles, and sermons. By extension, this literature implies that those who do not succeed must
face the fact that they themselves are responsible for their failure.
While scientifically it is routine to dismiss the individual deficiency theory as an apology for
social inequality (Fischer, et al, 1996) , it is easy to see how it is embraced in anti-poverty policy
which suggests that penalties and incentives can change behavior.
2. Poverty Caused by Cultural Belief Systems that Support Sub-Cultures of Poverty
The second theory of poverty roots its cause in the “Culture of Poverty”. This theory is
sometimes linked with the individual theory of poverty or other theories to be introduced below,
but it recently has become so widely discussed that its special features should not be
minimized. This theory suggests that poverty is created by the transmission over generations of
a set of beliefs, values, and skills that are socially generated but individually held. Individuals
are not necessarily to blame because they are victims of their dysfunctional subculture or
culture.
American Sociology has long been fascinated by subcultures of immigrants and ghetto
residents as well as the wealthy and powerful. Culture is socially generated and perpetuated,
reflecting the interaction of individual and community. This makes the “culture of poverty” theory
different from the “individual” theories that link poverty explicitly to individual abilities and
motivation. Technically, the culture of poverty is a subculture of poor people in ghettos, poor
regions, or social contexts where they develop a shared set of beliefs, values and norms for
behavior that are separate from but embedded in the culture of the main society.
Oscar Lewis was one of the main writers to define the culture of poverty as a set of beliefs and
values passed from generation to generation. He writes,
Once the culture of poverty has come into existence it tends to perpetuate itself. By the time
slum children are six or seven they have usually absorbed the basic attitudes and values of their
subculture. Thereafter they are psychologically unready to take full advantage of changing
conditions or improving opportunities that may develop in their lifetime. ( Scientific American,
October 1966 quoted in Ryan, 1976: 120)
Cultures are socialized and learned, and one of the tenants of learning theory is that rewards
follow to those who learn what is intended. The culture of poverty theory explains how
government antipoverty programs reward people who manipulate the policy and stay on
welfare. The underlying argument of conservatives such as Charles Murray in Loosing Ground
(1984) is that government welfare perpetuated poverty by permitting a cycle of “welfare
dependency” where poor families develop and pass on to others the skills needed to work the
system rather than to gain paying employment. The net result of this theory of poverty is

4
summed by Asen’s (2002: 48) perceptive phrase, “From the war on poverty to the war on
welfare.”
This theory of poverty based on perpetuation of cultural values has been fraught with
controversy. No one disputes that poor people have subcultures or that the subcultures of the
poor are distinctive and perhaps detrimental. The concern is over what causes and constitutes
the subculture of poverty. Daniel Patrick Moynihan found the concept particularly applicable to
his study of Black poverty in the early 1960s and linked Black poverty to the largely
“dysfunctional” Black family found in central cities. Valentine (1968:20) criticizes E. Franklin
Frazier, who with Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1965), portrayed the culture of the negro poor as an
“immoral chaos brought about by the disintegration of the black folk culture under the impact of
urbanization”.
In other sub-cultural situations the cultural portrayal of the poor is more sympathetic. For
example, many liberal scholars understand the cultural problems that Native Americans face
trying to assimilate middle class value systems. Ironically, after a number of generations we
recall the “heroic” efforts of Irish or Italian immigrant groups and their willingness to accept hard
work and to suffer for long term socio-economic gains; we forget the cultural discrimination they
faced for not fitting in during the first generations after they arrived. Today the sub-cultural
values for higher education and entrepreneurship among Asian and Indian immigrant groups
are prized as an example of how subcultures can work in the favor of groups trying to escape
poverty.
3. Poverty Caused by Economic, Political, and Social Distortions or Discrimination
Whereas the first “individualistic” theory of poverty is advocated by conservative thinkers and
the second is a culturally liberal approach, the third to which we now turn is a progressive social
theory. Theorists in this tradition look not to the individual as a source of poverty, but to the
economic, political, and social system which causes people to have limited opportunities and
resources with which to achieve income and well being. Research and theories in this tradition
attempt to redress the problem noted by Rank, Yoon and Hirschl (2003: 4???): “Poverty
researchers have in effect focused on who loses out at the economic game, rather than
addressing the fact that the game produces losers in the first place.”
The 19th century social intellectuals developed a full attack on the individual theory of poverty
by exploring how social and economic systems overrode and created individual poverty
situations. For example, Marx showed how the economic system of capitalism created the
“reserve army of the unemployed” as a conscientious strategy to keep wages low. Later
Durkheim showed that even the most personal of actions (suicide) was in fact mediated by
social systems. Discrimination was separated from skill in one after another area, defining
opportunity as socially mediated. Taken to an extreme, radical thinkers argued that the system
was flawed and should be radically transformed.
Much of the literature on poverty now suggests that the economic system is structured in such
as way that poor people fall behind regardless of how competent they may be. Partly the
problem is the fact that minimum wages do not allow single mothers or their families to be
economically self sufficient (Jencks 1996:72). The problem of the working poor is increasingly
seen as a wage problem linked to structural barriers preventing poor families from getting better
jobs, complicated by limited numbers of jobs near workers and lack of growth in sectors
5
supporting lower skilled jobs (Tobin 1994). Interestingly research is showing that the availability
of jobs to low income people is about the same as it has been, but wages workers can expect
from these jobs have fallen. Fringe benefits including health care and promotions have also
become scarce for low skilled workers. These and related economic changes documented by
Blank (1997) and Quigley (2003) show the way the system has created increasingly difficult
problems for those who want to work.
Elimination of structural barriers to better jobs through education and training have been the
focus of extensive manpower training and other programs, generating substantial numbers of
successes but also perceived failures. However, in spite of perceived importance of education,
funding per student in less advantaged areas lags that which is spent on richer students,
teachers are less adequately trained, books are often out of date or in limited supply, amenities
are few, and the culture of learning is under siege. This systemic failure of the schools is thus
thought to be the reason poor people have low achievement, poor rates of graduation, and few
who pursue higher education (Chubb and Moe, 1996).
A parallel barrier exists with the political system in which the interests and participation of the
poor is either impossible or is deceptive. Recent research has confirmed the linkage between
wealth and power, and has shown how poor people are less involved in political discussions,
their interests are more vulnerable in the political process, and they are excluded at many
levels. Coupled with racial discrimination, poor people lack influence in the political system that
they might use to mobilize economic benefits and justice.
A final broad category of system flaws associated with poverty relate to groups of people being
given a social stigma because of race, gender disability, religion, or other groupings, leading
them to have limited opportunities regardless of personal capabilities. No treatment of poverty
can be complete without acknowledging that groups against which discrimination is practiced
have limited opportunities regardless of legal protections. The process of gaining stronger rights
for minorities in poverty is an ongoing one, for which legal initiatives and public policy reform
must work with efforts to change public attitudes.
4. Poverty Caused by Geographical Disparities
Rural poverty, ghetto poverty, urban disinvestment, Southern poverty, third-world poverty, and
other framings of the problem represent a spatial characterization of poverty that exists separate
from other theories. While these geographically based theories of poverty build on the other
theories, this theory calls attention to the fact that people, institutions, and cultures in certain
areas lack the objective resources needed to generate well being and income, and that they
lack the power to claim redistribution. As Shaw (1996:29) points out, “Space is not a backdrop
for capitalism, but rather is restructured by it and contributes to the system’s survival. The
geography of poverty is a spatial expression of the capitalist system.”
That poverty is most intense in certain areas is an old observation, and explanations abound in
the development literature about why regions lack the economic base to compete. Recent
explanations include disinvestment, proximity to natural resources, density, diffusion of
innovation, and other factors (see Morrill and Wohlenberg, 1971:57-64). In a thorough review of
the literature on rural poverty, Weber and Jensen (2004) note that most literature finds a “rural
differential” in poverty, but that the spatial effect is not as clearly isolated from individual effects
as needed for confidence. Goldsmith and Blakely offer a comprehensive perspective on the link
6
between development and poverty in urban contexts. In their book, Separate Societies they
argue that the joint processes of movement of households and jobs away from poor areas in
central cities and rural regions creates a “separation of work, residence, and economic, social
and political life” (1992: 125). These processes which we already discussed are multiplied by
racism and political indifference of the localities in which they flourish.
One theoretical perspective on spatial concentrations of poverty comes from economic
agglomeration theory. Usually used to explain the emergence of strong industrial clusters
(Bradshaw, King, and Wahlstrom, 1998) agglomeration shows how propinquity of similar firms
attracts supportive services and markets, which further attracts more firms. In reverse, the
propinquity of poverty and the conditions leading to poverty or the consequences of poverty
(crime and inadequate social services) generate more poverty, while competitive areas attract
business clusters, drawing away from impoverished communities. Low housing prices in such
locations may attract more poor persons, for example, leading to housing disinvestment by
building owners. In a world in which the criteria for investment is “location, location, location,” it
is not unreasonable to track investment going to neighborhoods, communities and regions in
which there is already substantial investment, while leaving less attractive areas.
A second theoretical insight is from central place theory and related “human ecology”
examinations of urban growth that trace the flows of knowledge and capital (Rural Sociological
Society, 1990:71-74). As Niles Hansen (1970) points out, rural areas are often the last stop of
technologies, and low wages and competitive pricing dominate production. The lack of
infrastructure that allows development of human resources limits economic activity that might
use these resources. Places left behind (Lyson and Falk, 1992) experience the largest
competition in restructuring of the economy because the jobs in these categories are most likely
to move to less developed countries. An increasing body of literature holds that advantaged
areas stand to grow more than disadvantaged areas even in periods of general economic
growth and that there will be some “trickle-down” but not an equalizing as classical economists
would have us believe (Rural Sociological Society, 1990: 114-119).
A third perspective involves selective out-migration. One part of Wilson’s book, The Truly
Disadvantaged (1987), holds that the people from ghetto areas with the highest levels of
education, the greatest skills, widest world view, and most extensive opportunities were the
ones who migrated out of central city locations to other places. In addition, he argued, these
departing people also were the community’s best role models and were often civic leaders.
Rural poverty is similarly attributable to selective out migration. Population density (both low
rural density and the negative impact of high density) is another part of a growing body of theory
on spatial variables in social science using the tools of GIS to track spatial dynamics of
opportunity and poverty (Bradshaw and Muller, 2003).
5. Poverty Caused by Cumulative and Cyclical Interdependencies
The previous four theories have demonstrated the complexity of the sources of poverty and the
variety of strategies to address it. The final theory of poverty I will discuss is by far the most
complex and to some degree builds on components of each of the other theories in that it looks
at the individual and their community as caught in a spiral of opportunity and problems, and that
once problems dominate they close other opportunities and create a cumulative set of problems
that make any effective response nearly impossible (Bradshaw, 2000). The cyclical explanation
explicitly looks at individual situations and community resources as mutually dependent, with a
7
faltering economy, for example, creating individuals who lack resources to participate in the
economy, which makes economic survival even harder for the community since people pay
fewer taxes.
This theory has its origins in economics in the work of Myrdal (1957:23) who developed a theory
of “interlocking, circular, interdependence within a process of cumulative causation” that helps
explain economic underdevelopment and development. Myrdal notes that personal and
community well being are closely linked in a cascade of negative consequences, and that
closure of a factory or other crisis can lead to a cascade of personal and community problems
including migration of people from a community. Thus the interdependence of factors creating
poverty actually accelerates once a cycle of decline is started.
One place where the cycle of poverty is clearly defined is in a book on rural education by
Jonathan Sher (1977) in which a focus is on the cycle by which education and employment at
the community and individual level interact to create a spiral of disinvestment and decline, while
in advancing communities the same factors contribute to growth and well being. For example, at
the community level, a lack of employment opportunities leads to outmigration, closing retail
stores, and declining local tax revenues, which leads to deterioration of the schools, which leads
to poorly trained workers, leading firms not to be able to utilize cutting edge technology and to
the inability to recruit new firms to the area, which leads back to a greater lack of employment.
This cycle also repeats itself at the individual level. The lack of employment leads to lack of
consumption and spending due to inadequate incomes, and to inadequate savings, which
means that individuals can not invest in training, and individuals also lack the ability to invest in
businesses or to start their own businesses, which leads to lack of expansion, erosion of
markets, and disinvestment, all of which contribute back to more inadequate community
opportunities. Health problems and the inability to afford preventive medicine, a good diet, and a
healthy living environments become reasons the poor fall further behind. The cycle of poverty
also means that people who lack ample income fail to invest in their children’s education, the
children do not learn as well in poor quality schools and they fall further behind when they go to
get jobs. They also are vulnerable to illness and poor medical care.
A third level of the cycle of poverty is the perspective that individual lack of jobs and income
leads to deteriorating self-confidence, weak motivation, and depression. The psychological
problems of individuals are reinforced by association with other individuals, leading to a culture
of despair, perhaps a culture of poverty under some circumstances. In rural communities this
culture of despair affects leaders as well, generating a sense of hopelessness and fatalism
among community leaders.
This brief description of the cycle of poverty incorporates many of the previous theories. It
shows how people become disadvantaged in their social context which then affects
psychological abilities at the individual level. The various structural and political factors in the
cyclical theory reinforce each other, with economic factors linked to community and to political
and social variables. Perhaps its greatest value is that it more explicitly links economic factors at
the individual level with structural factors that operate at a geographical level. As a theory of
poverty, the cyclical theory shows how multiple problems cumulate, and it allows speculation
that if one of the linkages in the spiral was broken, the cycle would not continue. The problem is
that the linkages are hard to break because each is reinforced by other parts of the spiraling
system.
8
Lesson 2 Mainstream Development Models
(Reference material: Theories of Development, Royal Geographical Society)

Throughout the 20th century, and continuing into the 21st century, governments have tried to
develop the world’s poor countries. Development efforts have sought to increase national
income, lift poor people out of poverty and improve their quality of living. However, people have
had different ideas about how to best develop poor countries. Let’s consider six of those
approach
Modernisation
Science and technology can be used to advance industry and stimulate economic growth.
Development is achieved when a country has high industrial outputs and exports goods to the
world economy.
Positives
• Provides governments with a clear course for development
• Idea of ‘take-off’ suggests rapid development
• Economic growth provides jobs and can increase living stand
Negatives
• Outdated and Eurocentric, as modelled on the development of the wealthiest nations
• Industrial revolutions and economic growth can cause environmental degradation

Dependency
In a globalised world, all countries are interconnected. Some countries are winners of global
trade, whilst others are losers. Countries become wealthy by exploiting and underdeveloping the
poorest nations through unfair trade.
Positives
• Richer countries play a role in creating poverty
• Industry in the periphery given subsidies to develop
• Barriers to foreign imports, encouraging the citizens to buy nationally-produced goods

Negatives
9
• Government intervention could make global trade inefficient
• Spending to support industry could be spent providing basic needs or on infrastructure
• Trade barriers could increase the cost of living for citizens

The world is divided into two regions: the core and the periphery. The core contains developed
countries. The periphery contains underdeveloped countries. The core and periphery serve
different functions within the world economy
Resources flow into the core for industrial production. High-value consumer goods flow back to
the periphery
This structure of the world economy makes the core richer
Note that the core is much smaller and contains less people than the periphery

Neoliberalism
Free global trade can stimulate economic growth and large businesses can profit more without
government intervention. Universal development can therefore be achieved through the
promotion of ‘trade not aid’.
Positives
• With no trade tariffs or duties, a wide choice of goods can be bought worldwide at low cost
• Transnational Corporations freely invest overseas due to skilled workforces and no trade
barriers
• Promotes entrepreneurship and competitive businesses

Negatives
• Declining governments power and influence due to increased TNC power
• Poor countries have to repay all historical debt, with interest
• Now being surpassed by ‘post-neoliberalist’ ideas of greater government spending

Sustainable Development
Taking environmental factors into account, sustainable development ‘meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,’
according to the Brundtland report.
Positives
• Ensures that future generations have the right to a high standard of living
• Could prevent a ‘resource crisis’
• Highlights the need for global equality
• Is aware of environmental, economic and social needs

Negatives
10
• Could inhibit developing nations ability to industrialise and experience rapid growth
• Difficult to implement universal and long-term policies
• ‘Sustainability’ has become a buzzword and can seem a vague term

Human development
Development cannot be achieved through economic improvement alone. Multiple dimensions
(e.g. social, cultural, political) need to be taken into account. Development means individuals
have freedom to make life choices
Positives
• Wider definition of ‘development’ takes human welfare into account
• Assesses development on an individual (not a national) scale
• Believes everyone is equally entitled to a good life

Negatives
• People can live fulfilled lives without completely free choices
• People can have free choices but still live in poverty
• Free choice can focus on individual needs, not those of society or collective groups

Post-development

The rich cannot lift the poor out of poverty. Local communities need to address their own
problems, using their own ideas. People have to develop themselves, rather than relying on ill-
suited ideas from overseas.
Positives
• Countries do not have to develop according to Western ideas
• Local communities could be empowered by creating their own development ideas
• Developing countries do not have to follow the cultural and moral guidance of development
donors

Negatives
• Provides limited practical alternatives to replace overseas assistance
• The poorest of the poor will struggle to meet their basic needs in the short-term
• Data shows that absolute poverty as been halved

11
Lesson 3 People-Centered Development
(Reference material: Rethinking and Redefining Development , Lenore Polotan-de la Cruz, UP
CSWCD)

The 1990s witnessed 'the spread of a growing consensus on the need to look more closely
at the potential for local groups and individuals to be involved as their own development agents,
if only because of the manifest failures of past development perspectives to deliver major
improvements in living conditions to the world's poorest individuals and communities.
People-centered development is an alternative thought favoring. small-scale individual and
cooperative enterprise both in industry and agriculture. It places emphasis on people
themselves as agents of development, solving -their own problems individually or through local
organizations and networks.
It puts people first and poor people first of all. The ‘last-first' paradigm includes learning from
the poor, decentralization, empowerment, local initiative, and diversity. Development is not by
blueprint but by flexible and adaptive learning process. To achieve reversals on a massive
scale is now perhaps the greatest challenge facing the development professions.

Objectives of the People-Centered Development

The process of people-centered development seeks seeks to achieve the following objectives:
• the creation and promotion of self-awareness and critical consciousness among the
poor, individually and collectively;
• the formation of vibrant, self-propelling groups and associations of the marginalized' that
have a strong sense of identity, group responsibility, and capability to identify, plan, implement
and learn from their own development priorities;
• the promotion of secure and sustainable livelihood systems that meets the needs of
families and communities;
• the advancement of an accountable and transparent political system and processes that
promote human rights and personal responsibility of individuals and groups in society;
.• the enhancement of full human capaci ties through provision· of social, cultural and
spiritual services

Principles of People-Centered Development

Empowerment
\\'orking with others to promote people-centered development means more than you being a
leader with a group of followers. For people to become agents of their own development,
empowerment· is necessary. Empowerment implies working with others who are actng

12
powerfully and in concert to bring about radical changes in power structures and relations. Poor
people can begin to feel more
capable through the skills they acquire, but it is through their connectedness with other that they
become more powerful. Hence your role as a development worker is to help your partners
develop stronger beliefs in their own personal power and in the power of their organized
coIlective actions. When women and men. feel a greater sense of worth and personal control,
they recognize that they can participate with others to influence conditions that affect them. This
process and outcome are known as empowerment.
People-centered development approaches give emphasis on empowerment over charitable or
welfare responses. Empowerment of those participating in development efforts depends on five
factors:
• Personal interest or investment ' in the project - a feeling of·'being an essential part of
things
• Recognition (,[ common interests and common risk taking
• Belief in the possibility of a positive outcome
• Opportunity to take action and to make meaningful contributions
• Development and recognition of individual and group resources

Empowerment has been dominantly understood' to mean bringing people who are outside the
decision making process into it. This notion puts strong emphasis on increasing the ability of
communities to participate in formal decision-making processes/political structures ·as well as in
the economic spheres through the formation of their organizations,
An emerging notion of empowerment is described by Rowlands (1997) as much broader ' than
participation in decision-making. It includes initiating/catalyzing processes by which people
become' aware of their own interests (and how those relate to the interests of olhers) which lead
them to perceive themselves as able and entit led to make choices and decisions.
This conception of empowerment encompasses the full range of human abilities and potentials
and thus must involve undoing negative social constructions 50 that people realize their
capacity and right to act and influence decisions.
We can advance the process of empowerment considerably through four key measures:
• Providing opportunities for making decisions and for performing tasks
• Offering encouragement to one another in a way that communicates a belief in each
member's capabilities
• Recognizing: members' contributions and their results, as well as the over-all progress
that is taking place no matter how incrementally
• Acting as a group whenever possible to provide members an experience of united power
and reinforce an awareness of common commitment and shared risk-taking.

Participation

13
Participation has been defined as an "empowering process" that enables local people to do their
own analysis, to take command, to gain in confidence and to make their own decisions"
(Chambers 1995).
Participation enables local people to identify, express and achieve more of their own priorities.
Participation is an essential part of human growth, as it serves as a fuel for releasing people's
own creative energies. Genuine participation promotes self-confidence, pride, initiative, taking
responsibility and cooperation. This process, where the people 1earn to take charge of their
own lives and solve their own problems, is the essence of people-centered development.
Unfonunately. the word participation has become a catchphrase. Even when taken beyond
mere rhetoric, panicipation is often insufficient or limited. The succeeding box summarizes a
typology of how development organizations interpret and use the term participation:

Table 4.1. Typologies of Participation

Box : A typology of participation

Typology Characteristics

Passive participation People participate by being told what is going to happen or has
already happened. It is a unilateral announcement by an
administration or project management without listening to people's
responses. The information being shared belongs only to external
professionals

Participation in information giving People panicipate by answering questions posed by

extractive researchers using questionnaire surveys or
similar approaches. People do not have the opponunity to
influence proceedings, as the findings of the research are
neither shared nor checekd for accuracy.

Participation by consultation People participate by being consulted. and external people listen
to views. These ·external professionals define both the problems
and .solutions, and may modify these in the light of people's
responses. Such a consultative process does not concede any
share in decision-making,. and professionals are under no
obligation to take on board people's views.

14
 Participation for material incentives People participate by providing resources, for example
labor, in return for food. cash or other material
incentives. Much on-farm researches fall in this
category, as farmers provide the fields but are not
involved in the experimentation or the process of
learning. It is very common to see this !called
participation; yet, people have no stake in prolongirig
activities when the incentives end.

Functional participation People participate by forming groups to meet pre-determined

objectives related to the project, which can involve the development
or promotions of externally initiated social organizations. Such
involvement does not tend to be at early stages of project cycles or
planning, but rather after major decisions have been made. These
institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and facilitators,
but may become self-dependent.

Interactive participation People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and
the formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of
existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies
that seek multiple perspectives and makes use of systematic and
structured learning processes. These groups take control over local
decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining structures and
processes.

Self-mobilization People participate by taking initiatives independent of external

instItutions to change systems. They develop contacts with external
institurions for resources and technical advice as they need, but
retain control over bow resources are used. -Such self-initiated
mobilization and collective action may or may not challenge existing
inequitable distributions ofwealth and. power.

Source: Pret (1994), ada ted from Adnan et. al (1992

From the above, it is clear that participation, like development, assumes different meanings for
different people. The term could be used to build local capacity and self-reliance, but also to
undermine local control and empowerment.
CD workers must therefore take great care in using and interpreting the term participation. We
must constantly bear in mind that people centered deve.lopment requires a high degree of
participation from communities, civil society, minorities; indigenous peoples, women and others.
Such participation must be active, free and meaningful so that mere formal or ceremonial

15
contacts with the people are insufficient, This requires attention to issues of accessibility,"
including access to development processes, institutions. information and redress or complaints
mechanisms. This also means locating developmenr project mechanisms in proximity to
partners and beneficiaries, and opting tor process-based methodologies and techniques rather
than externally conceived solutions and imported technical models. It is now widely recognized
in development circles that local ownership and participa'tion are fundamental to sustainable
development processes by putting beneficiaries in charge of development.

Self-reliance
Self reliance means doing things for one-self, maintaining one's ·own self confidence, and
making independent choices. and decisions either as an individual or as part of a group. We
cannot make people self reliant. Self-reliance comes from within, but is directed outwards. Self-
reliance is founded on social relationships where like-minded individuals come together and
voluntarily pool their resources, talents and efforts towards achieving collectively desired goals.
Self-reliance is rooted in the premise that communities and local people have the inherent
capacity to learn from their experiences. understand their situation and act on their problems.
People must feel and believe that their own could drive their own development. The belief in
local people's involvement in development projects strengthens their commitment, knowledge
and aspirations and helps ensure greater community control of every aspect of development.
One of the greatest contributions that a development worker can make is to help the
marginalized regain ,their confidence in themselves and in their abilities, However,
self·confidence cannot be transferred, it has to be acquired. Selfconfidence is acquired through
positive experience, and through small successes reinforcing each other. We can promote self-
confidence through expressions of trust, confidence and encouragement.
Self-reliance is undermined by attitudes of superiority, arrogance and negative criticism, Hence,
development workers must consciously avoid attitudes and comments that reinforce feelings of
inferiority among the poor. We must constantly ask ourselves whether our actions and behavior
increase or undermine the confidence of the peor in their own capacities.
Bias for the Poor and Most Vulnerable
This means particular attention is given to non-discrimination, equality and equity and attention
to vulnerable groups, These groups include -women, minorities, indigenous peoples, children
and the elderly, among others, Since there is no universal checklist of who is most vulnerable in
every given context, 'Who is most vulnerable?' needs to be answered locally. Development
data need to be disaggregated as far as possible by race, religion, ethnicity, language, gender,
age and other categories of human rights concern. Decisions, policies and initiatives must guard
-against simply reinforcing existing power imbalances be'tween, for example, women and men,
landowner and peasant, workers and employers, young and old, etc.
Equity
Equity should qualify all initiatives in development. People centered development recognizes
that communities are far from homogenous and formal and informal power existing within each
community bring forth social, economic and political inequities among members of the
16
community as well as with the outside world, Efforts to reach the most powerless and
disadvantaged sectors and shift these power imbalances in favor of the less powerful should be
a central concern of people centered development.
Consideration or the social and ecological contexts of development programs emphasize the
need to take into account equity issues between and among classes and genders, The principle
of equity addresses concerns not only on who will have access to opportunities and resources,
but also on who will share the benefits derived from any development process.

Accountability
People·centered development focus on raising levels of accountability in the development
process by identifying claim-holders (and their entitlements) and corresponding duty-bearers
(and their obligations). It looks both at the positive obligations of duty-holders (to protect.
Promote and provide) and their negative obligations (to abstain from violations). It takes into
account the duties. of the full range of relevant actors, including individuals. States. local
organizations and authorities, private companies, aid-donors and international institutions.
Enhanced accountability moves development interventions from the realm of charity to that of
obligation, making it easier to monitor progress.
Conclusion
We cannot deny the urgent need for development. We need to confront real problems of
poverty, powerlessness, environmental degradation, alienation, and social exclusion faced by
our communities. However. to bring about successfully genuine development, we must have an
understanding of how people perceive and relate to their world.
People centered development is a lengthy process involving many stages and changes
unfolding oyer time. These changes simultaneously occur at different levels and dimensions. It
is complex and unpredictable.-The key challenge to CD workers is how to be self-critically
aware of how we learn and how we construct our realities through introspection.
"NO country in history has yet to developed through foreign investments, not anywhere, not in
the past, not in the present. All the developed countries today have developed from
native ingenuity and boldness, not from the kindness of strangers. Foreign investments
do not blaze trails, they go only to places that have already been blazed, that show a
track record for success. Foreign investments merely supplement, like vitamins, they do
not sustain, like food.

" ... Development is the handiwork of people rather than of capital. It sees the people as the
makers of development. It transforms them from mere labor , to be hired as needed, to
entrepreneurs, to create as is their birthright. It makes entrepreneurship a collective
rather than an individual initiative, one that benefits the community in general in
wellbeing rather than the investor in particular in profit. It transforms people from targets,
beneficiaries and objects of development to subjects, initiatorrs and authors of
development. Targets of development do not develop, authors of development do”.

17
"The real fundamentals are that countries do not develop from the benevolence of enlightened
greed of others but from pulling themselves up by their boostraps. The real fundamentals
are that individual investors do not create development, a community does. The real
fundamenrals are that a country’s greatest wealth does not lie in its land, or capital, or
natural resources, it lies in its people”.
(de Quiros, Conrad, 2004 March 12, “Fundamentals”, There’s the Rub, Philippine Daily Inquirer)

18