LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research, 15(1), 226-252, 2018

ISSN: 1813-222

From Modernization to Alternative Paradigm: Development in History and

Ideological Implications of Unequal Relations for the Periphery

JEGEDE, Emmanuel
Centre of Excellence on Development Communication,
Department of Theatre and Performing Arts,
Ahmadu Bello University Zaria - Nigeria
+2348028264767
[email protected]

Abstract

There has long been a history of ideological contention between the ‘Core’
and the ‘Periphery’ on development framework and practice. The Core
represents the highly industrialized nations of the North while the Periphery
stands for the poor dependent nations of the South. Indeed, several scholars
have argued that what seems to be a state of underdevelopment today in
the Third World countries is firstly the consequence of unequal ideological
relations and secondly the emulation of development models prescribed by
the industrialized nations of the North to the detriment of the South's fertile
reserve of traditional wisdom, cultural nuances, creativity and enterprise.
The West, specifically the US provided a development framework to be
emulated by the rest of the world. The potency of this western prescription
has crumbled in the face of apparent contradictions and catastrophic
economic and social results it produced for the Southern nations especially
Nigeria. Consequently, there have been several frantic struggles and efforts
to retrace steps and locate an alternative pathway to development since the
1970s. In view of this, using the lens of theories as an analytical tool, this
paper therefore contends that development is a historically produced
discourse traceable to the consolidation of the US hegemony in the period
1945-1967. This was occasioned by the need to expand the market for the US
produced goods and the need to find new sites for investment of US surplus
capital. The paper also unveils the implications of what this mistaken
emulation of western models have caused Nigeria and suggests what can be
done to avoid a national baleful and lurid destiny in future.

KEY WORDS: History, Theories, Development, Ideology. Implications,

Periphery

226
From Modernization to Alternative Paradigm…………………………………………………

Background

Several development scholars believe that development is a historically

produced discourse traceable to the consolidation of US hegemony in the
period 1945-1967. It was occasioned by the need to expand the market for
US produced goods and the need to find new sites for investment of the US
surplus capital. Emphatically, the mainstream construction of development
however hinges on: modernization, industrialization, urbanization,
agricultural technification and economic growth. The architectural basis for
the concept and programme of development was laid in 1949 by the US
President, Harry Truman. In the point four of his inaugural address, Truman
declares:
We must embark on a bold new program for making the
benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress
available for the improvement and growth of
underdeveloped areas. More than half the people of the
world are living in conditions approaching misery. Their
food is inadequate. They are victims of disease. Their
economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a
handicap to both them and more prosperous areas
(Escobar Aturo1995; Okwori et al 2013:1)

The above has been the basic design or conceptualization of development. It

draws a clear line between the developed and the underdeveloped; it
stipulates that absence of scientific and industrial progress equals
underdevelopment. Truman’s speech also introduced new meaning to
development: opposite of underdevelopment-synonym for poverty.
There are other implications of Truman’s conceptual foregrounding: that
underdevelopment can be solved if certain stages are followed; that
intervention from those already developed was justifiable and necessary; it
gave development a Messianic thrust of salvation and worthy of note is that
the intervention this presented into the internal affairs of other nations was
not to be challenged. From this framing, the world became divided into the
‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. Over 2 billion people were consigned to the dustbin
of history. The lessons from the above therefore, remain as follows:

• This is the background to the major prescription for development

which pre-occupied scholarly thought at the United Nations first
development decade, 1960-1970. It was the "GNP-trickle down"
theory. This model equates development with the stages of
urbanization in countries of the North.

227
JEGEDE, Emmanuel

• It is believed that industrialization, capital investment and Gross

National Product (GNP) output are the chief determinants of
development. The underlying assumptions for this are predicated
on the belief that development was only a problem to the South,
• That a centralized control of economy emphasizing industrialization,
urbanization and modernization leads to rapid economic growth;
that internal accumulation of wealth garnished by foreign capital
and technology brings about development and that the benefits of
these arrangements will then filter down to the people to bring
about material well-being.

• The potency of this prescription has crumbled in the face of

apparent contradictions and catastrophic results. Economic and
social conditions in the South especially in Nigeria have continued to
degenerate instead of improving.
• Even the so-called developed countries of the North have not wiped
out internal economic and social inequalities which place the
conditions of some of its people on the same level of poverty as the
South. (Escobar Aturo1995)
• The prescriptions paved the way for the introduction of
development plans. Several post-independence National
Development Plans: 1962-1968; 1970-1974; 1975-1980; 1981-1985;
the three year Rolling Plans of the Babangida regime and NEEDS

What these mean simply is that there is a mistaken emulation of Western

models to the detriment of the south's fertile reserve of traditional wisdom,
creativity and enterprise. This is happening when the world is shifting
towards participatory paradigms of development. A shift necessitated by the
realization that increased economic productivity and Gross National Product
(GNP) are not effective measurements of the standard of living of a people.
This paper therefore seeks to conceptualize the term development and trace
the history of development schools of thought (theories) chronologically and
highlight its attendant implications for the countries of the south otherwise
called the periphery. We address the paper from a historical perspective
observing a shift from modernization and dependency theories to more
normative and holistic approaches. But in the first place, what does
development mean?

Conceptualizing Development
Over the last few decades, there has been greater study on the concept of
development, including not only indicators like economic growth or

228
From Modernization to Alternative Paradigm…………………………………………………

production, but also incorporating factors currently considered essential for

full development, a non-linear development, and conceived as a complex
process involving different fields and characteristics. Development is
complex and interdisciplinary. Several scholars have attempted to
conceptualize development. To Rogers (1976):

Development is a widely participatory process of

social change in a society, intended to bring about
social and material advancement (including
greater equality, freedom, and other valued
qualities) for the majority of the people through
their gaining control over their environment.
Rogers stressed the endogenous dimension of
development. It must be through people's
participation, exploiting their own environment to
improve their situation rather than expecting
development to "fall from heaven" as it were.

In the same vein, Inayatullah (cited in Soola 2003:13), asserts that

“development is change toward patterns of society that allow better
realization of human values, that allow a society greater control over its
environment and over its political destiny, and that enables its individuals to
gain increased control over themselves”. Todar and Smith (2003) however,
stress that development involves both the quality and quantity of life. Quality
of life refers to opportunities and availability of social, health and educational
concerns. Quantity of life involves the amount of economic and political
participation of the people. This definition shifts the attention and aim of
development away from an economic to a more humanizing conceptualised
one. Todar and Smith (2003; Oyero 2008) identify three objectives of
development:

1. To increase the availability and widen the distribution of basic life

sustaining goods such as food, shelter, health and protection.
2. To raise levels of living in addition to higher incomes, the provision of more
jobs, better education, and greater attention to cultural and human values,
all of which will serve not only enhance material well-being but also to
generate greater individual and national self-esteem.
3. To expand the range of economic and social choices available to
individuals and nations by freeing them from servitude and dependence, not
only in relation to other people and nation- states but also to the forces of
ignorance and human misery. Having conceptualized the term development,
229
JEGEDE, Emmanuel

it is germane to consider the different paradigms or movements of

development and their implications for the wellbeing of the countries of the
South otherwise known as the Periphery. The development movement or
progression discussed in this paper spans from modernization paradigm
through dependency and the world system theory to the alternative
paradigm. These progressions will be critically considered and their
implications established.

Modernisation Paradigm & Implications

Modernization is here conceived as a process of diffusion whereby

individuals move from a traditional way of life to a more complex, more
technically developed and more rapidly changing way of life. This approach is
therefore concerned with the process of diffusion and adoption of
innovations in a more systematic and planned way. After the Second World
War, the founding of the United Nations stimulated relations among
sovereign states, especially the North Atlantic Nations and the developing
nations, including the new states emerging out of a colonial past. During the
Cold War period, the Superpowers— the United States and the former Soviet
Union—tried to expand their own interests to the developing countries. In
fact, the USA was defining development and social change as the replica of
its own political-economic system and opening the way for the transnational
corporations (Jan Searves 2008).

At the same time, the developing countries saw the ‘welfare state’ of the
North Atlantic Nations as the ultimate goal of development. These nations
were attracted by the new technology transfer and the model of a
centralized state with careful economic planning and centrally-directed
development bureaucracies for agriculture, education and health as the most
effective strategies to catch up with those industrialized countries. This
mainly economic-oriented view, characterized by endogenism and
evolutionism, ultimately resulted in the modernization and growth theory. It
sees development as a unilinear, evolutionary process and defines the state
of underdevelopment in terms of observable quantitative differences
between so-called poor and rich countries on the one hand, and traditional
and modern societies on the other hand (Jan Servaes 2008).

From the above, it is clear that the birth of modernization paradigm sets the
stage for the tripartite account of development theories. The USA, in its
agenda to replicate its development in developing countries, therefore
contributed to the humble beginnings of the Modernization paradigm as
230
From Modernization to Alternative Paradigm…………………………………………………

already captured in the background. Modernization paradigm was the

dominant academic perspective on development from 1945 to 1965(Servaes,
1999). Among the protagonists of the paradigm included Daniel Lerner and
Wilbur Schramm. Other scholars who played a critical role in the propagation
of the theory include Harold Lasswell and Everett Rogers (Melkote&Steeves,
2001). Singhal, (1987) pays special tribute to Wilbur Schramm —whom he
calls the fifth founding father of communication, after Harold Lasswell, Kurt
Lewin, Carl Hovland and Paul F. Lazarsfeld. Development would only flourish
in developing countries once such countries rid themselves of the obnoxious
traditional model. The traditional model was the greatest obstacles to
development and any developing country had to disengage the traditional
elements so as to be like the First World countries.

Modernization paradigm was also propelled by Walter Rostow’stakeoff

model. The coexistence of the traditional and modern models was only
temporary because the urge for equilibrium was expected to favor
modernization over the traditional. For Rostow, the stages through which a
traditional society ends up to modernization followed a lineal outline from
traditional to pre-takeoff stages, takeoff stage, to road to maturity and finally
to a mass consumption society (Servaes, 1999; Aswani, D. R. and Wekesa
A.S.2014). In summing up what entailed the differences between
underdevelopment and the modernity of societies, Servaes (1999: 19) writes
: “Underdevelopment reveals perceptible, quantitative differences between
the rich and the poor countries while Development means bridging the gaps
by means of imitation processes between traditional and modern, retarded
and advanced, or barbarian and civilized sectors and groups to the advantage
of the latter.” Development could therefore be manifested through
urbanization, literacy and exposure to mass media (Narula, 2006).

The modernization paradigm was not entirely a foolhardy idea. Robert White
(cited in Servaes & Malikhao 2008:159; Aswani, D. R. and Wekesa A.S.2014)
underscored some positive aspects as a result of the theory. According to
him, “The most significant communication dimension of the modernization
design in the developing world has been the rapid improvement of the
transportation, which linked rural communities into market towns and
regional cities. With improved transportation and sources of electric power,
the opening of commercial consumer supply networks stretched out into
towns and villages carrying with it the Western consumer culture and pop
culture of films, radio and pop music. Although rural people in Bolivia or Sri
Lanka may not have attained the consumption styles of American middle-

231
JEGEDE, Emmanuel

class populations, their lives did change profoundly. This was the real face of
modernization.” (Aswani, D. R. and Wekesa A.S.2014).

In support to White’s assessment of the modernization paradigm, it was

evident that the dominant paradigm saw loans advanced to the Third World
countries and to businessmen and farmers. Government revenues in form of
taxes collected were used to construct roads and offer public services to the
citizenry. The agricultural extension services thrived during the
modernization paradigm which saw the rise of agricultural centers of
experimentation. In Kenya for example, Aswani, and Wekesa (2014) reveal
that the establishment of Bukura Agricultural Institute in Kakamega Country
still thrives to date. In line with the desire to improve productivity of labor,
the modernization paradigm saw the setting up of instrumental ministries in
modern governments such as education, health, agriculture, roads and
communication. Production was also increased through import substitution.
The import of all these incentives left many Third World countries with
colonial effects. Nothing can be further from the truth now that
popularization of the modernization paradigm coincided with the colonial era
in many Third World countries. The modernization theory premises have
received a sufficient rebuttal, most of the rebuttals contributed to the
reconsideration of the development agenda.

Under the influence of the actual development in most Third World

countries, which did not turn out to be so justified as the modernization
theory predicted, the first criticisms began to be heard in the 1960s,
particularly in Latin America. In a famous essay, the Mexican sociologist,
Rodolfo Stavenhagen (1966) argued that the division into a traditional,
agrarian sector and a modern, urban sector was the result of the same
development process. In other words, growth and modernization had
brought with them greater inequality and underdevelopment especially for
the nations of the south. Stavenhagen tested his theses against the situation
in Mexico, while others came to similar conclusions for Brazil, and Chile (Jan
Servaes & Patchanee Malikhao).

The best known critic of the modernization theory is Gunder Frank (1969).
His criticism is fundamental and three-fold: the progress paradigm is
empirically untenable, has an inadequate theoretical foundation, and is, in
practice, incapable of generating a development process in the Third World.
Moreover, critics of the modernization paradigm charge that the complexity
of the processes of change are too often ignored, that little attention is paid
to the consequences of economic, political, and cultural macro-processes on
232
From Modernization to Alternative Paradigm…………………………………………………

the local level, and that the resistance against change and modernization
cannot be explained only on the basis of traditional value orientations and
norms, as many seem to imply. The critique did not only concern
modernization theory as such, but the whole (Western) tradition of
evolutionism and functionalism of which it forms part. Therefore, referring to
the offered unilinear and evolutive perspectives, and the endogenous
character of the suggested development solutions, these critics argue that
the modernization concept is a veiled synonym for ‘westernization,’ namely
the copying or implantation of western mechanisms and institutions in a
Third World context. Nowhere is this as clear as in the field of political
science. Many western scholars start from the assumption that the US or
West-European political systems are the touchstones for the rest of the
world. The rationale for President J.F. Kennedy’s Peace Corps Act, for
instance, was totally ingrained in this belief.

Similarly, Melkote&Steeves (2001) tear into the dominant paradigm refuting

the claim that the media was such a powerful instrument in the hands of the
powerful means that the audiences are manipulated and that they were
victims of propaganda. The duo- Melkote&Steeves dwell on the concomitant
failures of modernization theory. While debunking the notion that
development was a corollary of dropping backward traditional model of
society, Melkote&Steeves interrogate the ethnocentric bias in
modernization. The perspective that the West and specifically America was
the citadel of development was naïve and one that thrived on ignorance (or
perhaps, arrogance). Secondly, the duo applaud the deep seated tradition in
the Third World countries. Also in the assessment of the modernization
paradigm, Servaes &Malikhao (2008:159) write—“All societies would, passing
through similar stages, evolve to a common point: the modern society. In
order to be a modern society, the attitudes of ‘backward’ people—their
traditionalism, bad taste, superstition, fatalism, etc.—which are obstacles
and barriers in the traditional societies have to be removed. The differences
among nations are explained in terms of the degree of development rather
than the fundamental nature of each. Hence, the central problem of
development was thought to revolve around the question of ‘bridging the
gap’ and ‘catching up’ by means of imitation processes between traditional
and modern sectors, between retarded and advanced or between ‘barbarian’
and civilized sectors and groups to the advantage of the latter.

Still on the implications of modernization theory for the countries of the

south-the periphery, there is little consensus on whether modernization can
reduce inequalities between the Core and Periphery. Based on this,
233
JEGEDE, Emmanuel

Nimusabe, (2013) submits that it is good to observe and imitate what

happens elsewhere, but it is up to the individual to effect change in his/her
own situation. Development as a process cannot be achieved without
considering men and women as agents of change. In addition, because it is
difficult to reach consensus about definitions of development, it is also
difficult to plan the development of a country based on the development
pattern of another country. In the same light, Apffel-Marglin and Marglin
(1990) argue that development interventions in less developed countries are
not just a matter of transferring information and technology from more
developed contexts. This top-down approach to development has failed to
recognise local resources and the problems involved in the cultural and
material differences between contexts. It is important to find other reasons
and apply them in order to improve the living situations of people in poor
countries. Today, the question of why the Third World continues to copy
models drawn from the Western World is still current (Nimusabe, R.P. 2013).

In a nutshell, modernization failed because it never attained what it

portended to achieve (Servaes &Malikhao, 2008; Melkote&Steeves, 2001;
and Singhal, 1987). Any paradigmatic shift was to involve the concerns of the
people who were the direct beneficiaries of development. The citizens of the
Third World countries can narrate their problems with alacrity and as such
they ought to be included in development projects. Such opinion is likely to
propel the projects to sustainability. The culture of a people ought, in Marxist
tradition, to be the infrastructure of development ——one that helps
development to respond to their call. The ultimate failure of modernization
theory was the fact that monies went to intermediaries and not to the
intended people. This failure successively led to dependency model which
thrives in the Third World especially where colonialists made every effort to
disabuse horizontal communication and enforce policies through fear
(Aswani, D. R. and Wekesa A.S.2014).

Reinforcing the argument, Ferraro, (1996) believes that the dominant

paradigm of development did not yield good results in the third world
countries, as the effect was indirect. Dominant paradigm operates top-down
approach of development which is actually based on Dimension of
Development Communication activities like construction of huge
hydroelectric dams, development of hybrid seed varieties, development of
huge media networks etc. The dominant paradigm has failed due to
traditionalism, widespread poverty, illiteracy, growing population and
inadequate institutional mechanism to pass on the fruits of economic growth
to the general population, especially the disadvantaged sections of the

234
From Modernization to Alternative Paradigm…………………………………………………

countries of the South. In addition to these conditions, redtape, inefficiency

and corruption acted as contributing factors. Industrialization in the third
world countries led to reduction in labour, increased unemployment and
large-scale migration from villages to cities.

Media operations also followed the centralised system of communication of

the dominant paradigm and this has a lot of implications for the
development of the countries of the South. Following the top-down
approach, the media started serving the elite and the privileged classes of
the countries within the periphery. The programming turns towards the
issues relating to the elite and the ruling classes and news stories are
selected from big cities only. The common man disappears from the
newspapers, radio and television. Villages are hardly seen. If they are seen
somewhere, then it is only in negative news. Red-tape, inefficiency and
corruption play a vital role here also. The media has lost democratic values. It
has been converted into a marketing industry no more working for the
welfare of the larger population.

In terms of communication, Communication systems and theories under

this paradigm were expected to help modernize people’s attitudes and ways
of thinking, which would be conducive to support the economic model
already adopted successfully by the west, in accordance with the belief that
individuals have to change before development could truly take off.
Summarily, communication in the dominant paradigm was basically
associated with the linear, mass media model aimed at transmitting
information and messages from one point to another or many others, usually
in a vertical top-down fashion which was definitely not in favour of the
nations within the periphery.. This idea was rooted in the strong belief in the
persuasive power of the medium, especially before the 1970s. It was
associated with the use of media to persuade people to achieve, maintain,
and strengthen development goals, and the media’s role was paramount in
this campaign (Milkote and Stevens, 2001;Jegede 2015).

The failures of modernization paradigm caused a rethinking of the theoretical

models of reference for communication. This is because it became
increasingly evident that the media alone would not change people’s mind-
sets and behaviors. Theories such as “the Hypodermic Needle Theory” or
“the Bullet Theory” which over-emphasized the power of media over people
lost their relevance. With time, it became progressively more evident that
media impact was not as direct and as paramount as commonly believed,
and that audiences were also not as passive as believed. Even though

235
JEGEDE, Emmanuel

communication studies reviewed and downgraded the influence of media,

giving more relevance to the role of interpersonal communication, the model
of reference remained the same. None of the newly emerging theoretical
approaches questioned the overall validity of the one-way and usually top-
down flow of information. Although it would be unfair to label them as
propaganda, it is not difficult to see the manipulative potential of many
communication applications within the modernization paradigm. In the late
1980s, most development institutions conceived and applied communication
primarily for the dissemination of information and adoption of innovations.
The emphasis placed on tangible communication products neglected the
potential of communication as dialogic, cross-cutting, investigative tool. This
emphasis was so pervasive that the medium appeared to be more important
than the content itself, which echoes Marshall McLuhan’s famous slogan,
“The Medium is the message’. Unfortunately, the available data indicated
that the most important message was that media were not the answer to
development problems, at least, not in the way and manner they were being
used.The process of communication use for development in dominant
paradigm had developed a minority of nations in the world, and a small
number of individuals and groups in the remaining nations. However, it had
underdeveloped a majority of individuals and groups, especially in the
periphery (Third World nations), poverty, unemployment and income
inequality seemed to be on the rise in the Third World (Melkote and Stevens,
2001).

Development scholars in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have shown how in
the preceding decades economic policies, international aid, trade, etc.
focused on the exploitation of the periphery (i.e. Third World Nations) by the
Center (i.e. Industrial Countries); they emphasized structural imbalance
between the Periphery and the Center which was responsible for the
underdevelopment of the Third World (Frank, 1969). These development
scholars explained how and why the trickle down of economic and social
benefits of development was not being felt in the Periphery. The decade of
the seventies, therefore, was a period of ferment in the field of development
in general, and development communication in particular. The general note
of optimism that reigned in the fifties and sixties regarding the role and
potential of the mass media in the development process in the Third World
turned sour in the seventies. Administrators and researchers alike realized
that the development process was not as straightforward and clear – cut as it
was earlier conceptualized. There were too many extraneous variables that
impacted on the process. The mass media, far from being the independent

236
From Modernization to Alternative Paradigm…………………………………………………

variable in the change process, were themselves affected by extraneous

factors.
An important conceptual problem in theories of modernization was the level
at which change was sought to be introduced. The unit of analysis was
predominantly centered within the individual (Fair, 1989). The underlying
theme in this approach was that the benefits of modernization would accrue
by changing the traditional attitudes, values and aspirations of the individual
peasants in developing nations. Exposure to new ideas and practices usually
through the mass media could help remove traditional attitudes which posed
impediments to progress (Lerner, 1958; Shore 1980). This psychological bias
in research, Rogers stated, could be traced to the fact that several early
scholars in communication had psychological backgrounds and so it was
obvious that their views of communication and change neglected the
influence of social – structural variables that affect communication (Rogers,
1976a). Much of the early research, therefore, placed an exaggerated
emphasis on the individual as the locus of control for change to the neglect
of the group and also the relations between sources and receivers. This
resulted in the individual constituting the unit of response and the unit of
analysis, and consequently, the unit of change (Coleman 1958; Rogers,
1976a).

In summary, the dominant paradigm has been criticized by several people for
its reductionism. It did not take sufficiently into account the different types
of target populations (e.g., prosperous farmers who own land and are open
to new techniques versus other farmers who are illiterate, poor and
exploited) (Mefalopulos, 2008). It also failed to take into account the impact
of the economic and political structures on the capacity to adopt innovations.
The same charge of blindness where social, political and economic factors are
concerned also applies to innovations that require a process of diffusion.
Finally, communication channels and sources were generally used within the
framework of vertical, unilateral, top-down communication. There was
never any mention of horizontal communication between the groups in the
communities affected by the problem that the innovation was meant to
resolve. There was also a lack of vertical, bottom-up communication, which
would have made it possible to bring the people's problems to the attention
of the decision makers and the experts. Emphasis was on civilization at the
expense of basic needs and poverty alleviation; It is one way, top down,
vertical information transmission; it focuses on persuasion rather than
cultivation of trust and mutual understanding; It is ethnocentric; it is imbued
with religious bias; it encouraged cultural imperialism and insensitivity; it
exaggerates the power of mass media and overlooked the importance of

237
JEGEDE, Emmanuel

interpersonal communication; it ignores ecological issue and promotes

national-level programs rather than local-level actions. These weaknesses
brought a lot of criticisms against the paradigm by the nations of the
Periphery until it gave way for the dependency theory and perspective
(Oyero 2008).

Dependency Theory& Implications

Dependency theory originates from a criticism of modernization theory. The

modernisation theorists argued that poor countries would catch up to the
West after imitating what happened in Western countries, but this did not
happen. In the 1960s and 1970s, the originators of dependency theory
insisted that the Third World development should be treated as a
historically distinct problem. The idea of dependency emerged from a
research report written by a group led by Raul Prebish in the 1950s and an
essay by Cardoso and Faletto in the mid-1960s. They were preoccupied, like
so many dependency theoreticians, by Latin-America and tried to understand
why, after 200 years of pervasive political, economic and cultural interchange
with Europe and the United States, the degree of underdevelopment vis-à-vis
the advanced industrial countries had changed so little (Nimusabe, 2013).
Thus they developed dependency theory to explain the causes of this
stagnation. There are two dependency theory traditions: Structuralist
Dependency Theory and Radical Dependency Theory or Marxist Dependency
Theory (Todaro, 2003; Dos Santos, 2002).

The ‘dependistas’ according to Searves , J.(2008), were primarily concerned

with the effects of dependency on peripheral countries, but implicit in their
analysis was the idea that development and underdevelopment must be
understood in the context of the world system. This paradigm emerged in
Latin American countries and it is relevant to these countries because these
countries achieved freedom long ago but continue to face problems of
poverty in large sections of the population, regional inequalities, alongside
social inequalities and sectoral divisions in the economy that are similar to
the more recently liberated countries. According to Ferraro (1996) these
Latin American countries were forced to use their raw materials and cheap
labour for the welfare of the dominant states instead their own
development.

The dependency paradigm played an important role in the movement for a

New World Information and Communication Order from the late 1960s to
the early 1980s. At that time, the new states in Africa, Asia and the success of
238
From Modernization to Alternative Paradigm…………………………………………………

socialist and popular movements in Cuba, China, Chile and other countries
provided the goals for political, economic and cultural self-determination
within the international community of nations. These new nations shared
the ideas of being independent from the superpowers and moved to form
the Non-Aligned Nations. The Non-Aligned Movement defined development
as political struggle (Jan Servaes & Patchanee Malikhao).

However, Mefalopulos (2008) regrets that the proponents of the dependency

theory vigorously supported rethinking the communication agenda along the
lines of a more balanced flow of communication at the international level.
Yet, at the national level, they often neglected to consider the horizontal
component of communication within countries and failed to give proper
attention to the potential of privately owned media and community media.
While arguing against the “free-flow” argument proposed by the United
States and its allies, the “dependentistas” remained rooted in the classic
media-centric conception of communication, mostly from the state
perspective. Ideally, the state is expected to represent the wider public’s
interest, but reality shows that this has seldom been the case. Dependency
theories did not consider and support the wider role that “freer”
communication , and not just media, at different levels could play in creating
spaces and actively engaging broader sectors of society in development.
Despite the significant differences between modernization and dependency
theories, their communication model was basically the same: a one -way
communication flow, with the main difference between the two theories
being who was controlling and sending the message and for what purpose.

To this end, according to the dependency theory, the most important

hindrances to development are not the shortage of capital or management,
as the modernization theorists contend, but the hindrances are found in the
present international system. The obstacles are thus not internal but
external. This also means that development in the Centre determines and
maintains the underdevelopment in the Periphery. The two poles are
structurally connected to each other. To remove these external obstacles,
they argue, each peripheral country should dissociate itself from the world
market and opt for a self-reliant development strategy; but can that really be
possible? To make this happen, most scholars advocated that a more or less
revolutionary political transformation will be necessary. Therefore, one may
say that the dependency paradigm in general as well as in its subsector of
communication is characterized by a global approach, an emphasis on
external factors and regional contradictions, a polarization between
development and underdevelopment, a subjectivist or voluntaristic

239
JEGEDE, Emmanuel

interpretation of history, and a primarily economically oriented analytical

method. As a result, the only alternative for non-aligned nations was to
disassociate themselves from the world market and achieve self-reliance,
both economically and culturally. The New International Economic Order is
one example of attempts toward this end.

However, many non-aligned countries were simply too weak economically,

and too indebted, to operate autonomously. As a result, attempts to legislate
integral, coherent national communication policies failed because of the
resistance of national and transnational media interests. As Friberg and
Hettne (1985:212) point out, “Self-reliance is a difficult option in the context
of the present world order.” Because of this, McAnany J (1983:4)
characterized dependency theory as “... good on diagnosis of the problem ...
but poor on prescription of the cure.” Dependency addressed the causes of
underdevelopment, but did not provide concrete ways of addressing that
underdevelopment. In a bid to fill the gap created by the dependency
thinking, the world systems theory emerged.

World Systems Theory

Just as the dependency school was a child of its time, so were the world
systems theories. This approach was developed in the mid-1970s, when East
Asian countries were experiencing swift growth that could no longer be
described as dependent development, particularly as they had begun to
challenge the economic superiority of the USA in a number of areas. Another
factor conducive to the rise of the world systems theories was the then
impending crisis in socialist countries. The failure of the Cultural Revolution
in China and economic stagnation in the Eastern Bloc led to an opening in the
direction of international capital. Previously unthinkable alliances were
formed: for example between Washington and Peking. These were
developments to which revolutionary Marxism could contribute nothing. It
could be said that developments were happening on a world scale that was
not covered by contemporary development theories. Wallerstein was the
most outspoken figure in this new terrain. His works from the mid- 1970s
onwards were strongly based on the ideas of André Gunder Frank and other
dependentistas. Unequal trade, the exploitation of the periphery by the core,
and the existence of a world market were concepts taken from dependency
school thinking. Like Frank, Wallerstein argued that a capitalist world
economy had existed since the 16th century, that is, since the beginning of
the colonial era. He saw non-capitalist modes of production as a part of
capitalism, the definition of which (based on 19th-century England) he saw as
240
From Modernization to Alternative Paradigm…………………………………………………

too narrow. Increasingly, countries, which were previously isolated and self-
supporting, became involved in the world economy.
The final result is the creation of a core and a periphery, with a number of
semi-periphery countries in between. The core consists of the industrialized
countries, the periphery of the agricultural export countries. The semi-
peripheral countries (like Brazil), which act as a buffer between the core and
the periphery, are differentiated from the periphery by their more significant
industrial production. The semi-periphery functions as a go-between: it
imports hitech from the core, and in return exports semi-manufactured
goods to the core. It imports raw materials from the periphery and in turn
exports the finished products to the industrialized countries. Wallerstein saw
the Newly Industrialized Countries as examples of the semi-periphery. A
peripheral country can achieve the status of semi-periphery and in this way
can be brought into the core. These were areas where Wallerstein clearly
diverged from dependency school of thinking, if only in that dependentistas
did not reason in terms of a semi-periphery.

The world systems concept was seen, in this period, as a handy solution to a
problem that dependentistas were increasingly confronted with: how to
differentiate between internal and external factors as explanations for
underdevelopment. The world systems theory offered a simple solution: in
moving to a more abstract level (with countries as global analysis units) there
are no more external factors. There are also no longer different sorts of
capitalism, such as core capitalism and peripheral capitalism; instead there is
one capitalist world system. The origin of development and
underdevelopment is then found in the incorporation of countries within the
world system. Underdevelopment occurs because countries are subject to a
trade regime and produce for a world market that is characterised by
unequal trade. Wallerstein was criticised by followers of the modes of
production theory, who argued that there were a number of production
modes, each articulating in its own way with the dominant capitalist
mode.(Oyero 2008; Jegede, 2012; BTC 1998;)

Another world systems author is Samir Amin, who began publishing on this
topic in 1976. In contrast to Wallerstein, Amin did not agree with the
presence of a capitalist mode of production in Latin America from the 16th
century. He did agree with the existence of a noncapitalist mode of
production, which saw its surplus appropriated through unequal trade. This
unequal trade led to a stagnation in the expansion of the national market
and thus to a disarticulated economic system. Like Wallerstein, Amin argued
for the existence of the go-betweens, the semi-peripheral countries. In

241
JEGEDE, Emmanuel

general, the criticism of the world systems approach is the same as that of
the dependency theories: the neglect of class analysis, the neglect of the
diversity of the Third World, and the assumption of non-workable political
options such as self reliance and a socialist world government. In taking a
global view, the findings are difficult to translate to the concrete realities of
the Third World countries. As with previous approaches, the world systems
theory was also pushed to the background in the 1980s. It was only during
the 1970s and early 1980s that new perspectives in development
communication began to grow stronger. The Latin American school of
thought was very influential in promoting the new communication concept,
based on the two-way horizontal model. Lius Ramiro, Beltran Salmon
(2006a), and Juan Diaz Bordenau (2006) were some of the influential scholars
working on this idea.

Participation Paradigm & Implications

Oyero (2008; Servaes 2002) reveal that the promises of the modernization
paradigm failed to materialise, and its methods came increasingly under fire,
and the dependency theorists failed to provide a successful alternative
model. With the modernization paradigm and dependency theory in place,
the implication of absolute poverty became egregiously enormous world
wide, that is to say people who cannot meet their basic needs. About a third
of the population in the so-called developing countries are in this category.
The common starting point therefore is the examination of the changes from
‘bottom-up’, from the self-development of the local community. The basic
assumption is that there are no countries or communities that function
completely autonomously and that are completely self sufficient, nor are
there any nations whose development is exclusively determined by external
factors. Every society is dependent in one way or another, both in form and
in degree. Thus, a framework was sought within which both the Center and
the Periphery could be studied separately and in their mutual relationship.

More attention is also being paid to the content of development, which

implies a more normative approach- which Another development questions
whether ‘developed’ countries are in fact developed and whether this genre
of progress is sustainable or desirable. It favors a multiplicity of approaches
based on the context and the basic, felt needs, and the empowerment of the
most oppressed sectors of various societies at divergent levels. A main thesis
is that change must be structural and occur at multiple levels in order to
achieve these ends. In view of this, Servaes (2002) reveals that a different
approach focusing on people’s participation began to emerge. This
242
From Modernization to Alternative Paradigm…………………………………………………

participatory model is less oriented to the political-economic dimension and

more rooted in the cultural realities of development. The search for a
different and better vision in development practices is currently linked to
people’s participation and empowerment. The justification for participatory
model, according toThomas(1994), was that the worldwide poverty situation
could be solved by participatory communication. The use of participatory
communication education mechanisms could bring about social change and
development through sustained improvements in agriculture, health,
education, politics and economics over a sufficiently long enough time to
make a considerable proportion of the population less poor, both in material
as well as immaterial ways. Participation is a concept that has been gaining
increasing recognition and prestige in the development discourse and its
practices. Participatory approaches require a shift in the way individuals are
considered, from passive recipients to active agents of development efforts.
There are a number of reasons for this shift, a major one of which is
presented by Ascroft and Masilela (1994: 282): “If peasants do not control or
share control of the processes of their own development, there can be no
guarantee that it is their best interest that is being served.”

World Bank (1994: 3) believes that, internationally, emphasis is being placed

on the challenge of sustainable development, and participation is
increasingly recognised as a necessary part of sustainable development
strategies. Meaningful participation cannot occur without communication.
Participation paradigm is based on the assumption that the common people
are intelligent and can be active agents of change. Development efforts
should then be based on people’s capacity to contribute and participate
actively in the task of transforming their society. It emphasizes the
endogenous nature of development as something that must evolve from the
people as opposed to ‘trickle-down’ belief. It also emphasizes self reliant
growth, stressing that people have the ability to face their problems with
resources or ideas emanating from within without relying on external help.
Self reliance thus has three components:
· The development of the consciousness in people that they are in charge of
their destiny;
· That people can think or reason and achieve any height by themselves; and
· That people can acquire the attitude for solving problems that confront
them by their own initiative and skills (Oso, 2002:10).

However, Oyero (2008) notes that the development focus has shifted from
economic growth to include other social dimensions needed to ensure
meaningful results in the long run—as indicated by the consensus built in the
243
JEGEDE, Emmanuel

definition of the Millennium Development Goals. Sustainability and people’s

participation became key elements of this new vision. The alternative
paradigm emphasizes not only material development but also the
development of values and cultures. Where development communication
interventions are concerned, it emphasizes the small media operating in
networks and the use of grassroots communication approaches. According to
this paradigm, grassroots participation reinforces the chances that
communities will adopt activities appropriate for them. One of the models
attached to this paradigm is the methodology of community media (Oyero
2009;Berrigan 1981;Jegede 2015).

The participatory model, by implication,according to servaes(2002),

incorporates the framework of multiplicity;it stresses the importance of
cultural identity of local communities and of democratization and
participation at all levels—international, national, local and individual; and it
points to a strategy, not merely inclusive of, but largely emanating from, the
traditional ‘receivers’. Paulo Freire (1997) refers to this as the right of all
people to individually and collectively speak their word: “This is not the
privilege of some few men, but the right of every man. Consequently, no one
can say a true word alone—nor can he say it for another, in a prescriptive act
which robs others of their words”. In order to share information, knowledge,
trust, commitment, and a right attitude in development projects
participation is very important in any decision-making process for
development. Therefore, the International Commission for the Study of
Communication Problems argues that “this calls for a new attitude for
overcoming stereotyped thinking and to promote more understanding of
diversity and plurality, with full respect for the dignity and equality of
peoples living in different conditions and acting in different ways” (MacBride,
1980). This model stresses reciprocal collaboration throughout all levels of
participation.

There are many reasons for the adoption of participation in development,

some of which relate directly to the enhancement of project results. As early
as 1982,White (as cited in McKee 1994: 215) summarized the major reasons
for the adoption of this approach in development initiatives, maintaining that
(1) services can be provided at a lower cost; (2) participation has intrinsic
values for participants, alleviating feelings of alienation and powerlessness;
(3) participation is a catalyst for further development efforts; (4)
participation leads to a sense of responsibility for the project; and (5)
participation ensures the use of indigenous knowledge and expertise.
Despite these and other benefits, participation has remained a highly praised
244
From Modernization to Alternative Paradigm…………………………………………………

term, but a poorly adopted one. This is probably owing to the concerns that
managers may experience failure when not in total control of a project, as
well as participation’s multifaceted conception and the many sensitive issues
involved in its application.51

Many development practitioners and managers have their own

understanding of participation, leading at times to divergent views on what it
truly entails and how it should be applied. The richness, or “broadness,” of
the concept of participation is not considered a problem by everybody.
Servaes argues that in dealing with participation, rigidly defined theoretical
structures are neither feasible nor desirable (Servaes, Jacobson, and White
1996). He claims that participation’s strength derives from its flexibility in
adapting its strategic approach according to the situation. Other scholars
tend to differ: they believe that this adaptability constitutes a major
weakness of participatory approaches, which can be easily modified and used
in a number of ways, often not consistent with a genuine participatory
philosophy.

Huesca (2000: 75) confirms this point: “Indeed, participation has been
embraced by development scholars who have incorporated this notion into
modernization practices, such as message development and social
integration. The pluralistic spirit of the participatory turn in development
communication has had the ironic effect of redeeming the dominant
paradigm from its critics.” This statement is a further indication of the
complexity and ambiguity that this concept implies. That participation is not
an absolute concept, and that it can be conceived and applied in different
degrees, is part of the problem. Pretty devised a typology that includes seven
different types of participation as interpreted and applied by various
development organizations (Pretty et al. 1995). This taxonomy ranges from
passive participation, where people are simply told what is happening and
their participation is conceived as a mere head-counting, to self-mobilization,
where people not only have the power to make decisions but can also initiate
the process. In between these two extremes, there are other kinds of
participation with varying degrees of people’s involvement.

The full categorization, starting from the least participatory, includes passive
participation, participation in information giving, participation by
consultation, participation for material incentives, functional participation,
interactive participation, and self-mobilization. The World Bank (1995)
identified four types of participation: (1) information sharing, (2)
consultation, (3) collaboration, and (4) empowerment. Information sharing
245
JEGEDE, Emmanuel

and consultation are considered low-level forms of participation, while the

other two are considered high-level forms. These types are consistent with
others, such as the classification derived by a literature review by
Mefalopulos (2003), which includes (1) passive participation, when
stakeholders attend meetings to be informed; (2) participation by
consultation, when stakeholders are consulted but the decision making rests
in the hands of the experts; (3) functional participation, when stakeholders
are allowed to have some input, although not necessarily from the beginning
of the process and not in equal partnership; and (4) empowered
participation, when relevant stakeholders take part throughout the whole
cycle of the development initiative and have an equal influence on the
decision-making process.

The most developed form of participation is self-management. This principle

implies the right to participation in the planning and production of media
content. However, not everyone wants to or must be involved in its practical
implementation. More important is that participation is made possible in the
decision-making regarding the subjects treated in the messages and
regarding the selection procedures. One of the fundamental hindrances to
the decision to adopt the participation strategy is that it threatens existing
hierarchies. Nevertheless, participation does not imply that there is no longer
a role for development specialists, planners, and institutional
leaders. It only means that the viewpoint of the local groups of the public is
considered before the resources for development projects are allocated and
distributed, and that suggestions for changes in the policy are taken into
consideration( Servaes 2002).

Conclusion

Most development communicators agree that Modernization theory has

concomitant dependence on the power of western technology and adapting
modern technologies made the poor Third World countries ever more
dependent on the First World. Moreover, these technologies could not be
adapted exactly, as many of these countries lacked basic infrastructure items
like electricity and transportation. The dependency argument played an
important role in the movement for the New Information and
Communication Order in the 1970s (MacBride, 1980). Since it has been
opulently argued that the modernization paradigm has enormous negative
implications for the development of the periphery, one should therefore,
pause and ponder a little on what the likely remedy may be. Actually, there is
no doubt that all paradigms have their own limitations and none of them is

246
From Modernization to Alternative Paradigm…………………………………………………

infallible. But be that as it may, participation paradigm, despite its loopholes,

still has a little merit over the other paradigms spoken about in this paper.
Based on this, it is suggested on a very strong note that development should
be conceived from participatory point of view; this is because development
needs a method of communication that is liberating, egalitarian, indigenous,
local or endogenous and geared towards the betterment of all, especially the
poor, the marginalized, and women. The answer to this is found in
participatory approaches using accessible media that are culture-specific and
cater for a large mass of people. Participation promotes interactivity;
creates community and communality; liberates; develops and supports
cultural identity. People-based Participatory Research on how inclusive
mechanisms affect social change is another component of using participation
for development. Such research involves the public at large and draws
attention to the scope of a programme and creates awareness among the
target audience. For example, research among the target audience on the
effect of an entertainment- education program in a village would show how
much discussion and study of the issue at hand occurs at the village level.

References

Ascroft, J., and S. Masilela. 1994. “Participatory Decision-Making in Third

World Development.” In Participatory Communication: Working for
Change and Development, ed. S. White with K. S. Nair and J. Ascroft,
259–94. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.

Aswani, D. R. and Wekesa A.S.(2014) “ A Review of Relevant Literature on

Development Communication and its Implications for Kenya”in
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 4, No. 11;
September 2014

Anaeto, S. G. and Solomon-Anaeto (2010). Development communication:

Principles and Practice. Ibadan: Stirling-Horden Publishers

Apffell-Marglin, F. & Marglin, S.A. (1990). Dominating knowledge:

Development, culture and Resistance. Oxford: University Press
Oxford

Baran, S. J.and Davis D. K. (2003). Mass communication theory, foundations,

ferment, and future, Belmont (USA): Thomas-Wardworth.

247
JEGEDE, Emmanuel

Baran, P. (1957). The Political Economy of Growth, New York: Monthly

Review Press.

Baran, S. J. (2009). Introduction to mass communication: Media literacy and

culture (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Berrigan, F. J. (1981). Community media and development. Paris: UNESCO

Inkeles, A., and Smith, D.H. (1974). Becoming modern: Individual
change in six developing countries . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.

Carmen, R. 1996. Autonomous Development. New York: Zed Books

Development Theories – Lecture Notes. BTC 1998.

Dos Santos, T. (1970). The Structure of Dependency, American Economic

Review, 60(21), May.
Escobar Aturo (1995) Encountering Development: The making and Unmaking
of the Third World, Princeton: Princeton University Press

Ferraro, V. (1996). Dependenay Theory : An Introduction.www.vinnie.com

Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the Heart (D. Macedo & A. Oliveira, Trans.)

FAO. 1981. Communication for Rural Development. Rome: FAO.

———. 1984. Expert Consultation on Communication for Development.
Rome: FAO.

Huesca, R. 2000. “Communication for Social Change among Mexican Factory

Workers on the Mexico-United States Border.” In Redeveloping
Communication for Social Change: Theory, Practice, and Power, ed.
K. G.Wilkins, 73–87. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield

Hettne, B. (1982). Development Theory and the Third World, Stockholm:

SAREC

Jacobson, T. 1994. “Modernization and Post-Modernization Approaches to

Participatory Development Communication.” In Participatory
Communication: Working for Change and Development, ed. S. White
with K. S. Nair and J. Ascroft, 60–75. New Delhi, India: Sage
Publications.
248
From Modernization to Alternative Paradigm…………………………………………………

Melkote, S.R. (1991). Communication for Development in the Third World.

New Delhi: Sage Publications

Mcanany, E. (ed.) (1980). Communications in the Rural Third World: The Role
of Information in Development, New York: Praeger.

Mcanany, E. (1983). From Modernization and Diffusion to Dependency and

Beyond: Theory and Practice in Communication for Social Change in
the 1980s, Development Communications in the Third World,
Proceedings of a Midwest Symposium, University of Illinois, April.

Nimusabe, R.P. (2013) ‘Piloting The Reflect Approach With A Rwandan

Potter Community’ A Thesis submitted to the School of Education,
Faculty of Humanities, of the University of the Witwatersrand in
fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in Education School of Education Faculty of Humanities,
The University of the Witwatersrand

Marx, K. (1995). A new abridgement. D. McLellan (Ed.). Oxford: Oxford

University Press

Melkote, S. R. 1991. Development Communication in the Third World: Theory

and Practice.
New Delhi, India: Sage Publications

McKee, N. 1994. “A Community-based Learning Approach: Beyond Social

Marketing.” In Participatory Communication: Working for Change
and Development, ed. S.White with K. S. Nair and J. Ascroft, 194–
228. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.

Mody, B. (1991). Designing Messages for Development Communication: An

Audience Participation-Based Approach, New Delhi: Sage.

Macbride, S. (1980). Many Voices, One World, Kogan Page: London/UNESCO.

Mefalopulos, P. (2008) Development communication sourcebook: Broadening

the boundaries of communication. Washington DC: The World Bank

Moemeka A. A. (1994). Development communication: A historical and

conceptual overview. In A. A. Moemeka (ed.), Communicating for
249
JEGEDE, Emmanuel

development: A new pan-disciplinary perspective. State University of

New York Press, Albany.

Mefalopulos, Paolo (2008) Development Communication Sourcebook

Broadening The Boundaries Of Communication, : /The World Bank

Narula, U. (2006). Communication Models. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers &

Distribution (P) Ltd.

Narula, U. (2006 b).Dynamicsof Mass Communication: Theory and Practice.

New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers & Distribution (P) Ltd

Okwori, J.Z. (2012) “The Architecture of Development’ Post graduate

Lecture Materials, Centre of Excellence on Development
Communication, Department of Theatre and Performing
Arts,Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.

Oso, L. (2002). Communication theories and development communication. In

Oso, L.(ed.), Communication and development: A reader. Abeokuta:
Jedidah Publishers. 151-168

Oyero,Olusola.(2009) Development Journalism and Broadcasting

(Development Communication). MAC 341 Victoria Island: NOUN
Publications

Pretty, J. N. I. Gujit, J. Thompson, and I. Scoones. (1995). Participatory

Learning and Action: A Trainer’s Guide. London: International
Institute for Environment and Development

Soola, E. O. (2003). Development communication: The past, the present and

the future. In Soola (ed.).Communicating for development purposes.
Ibadan: Kraft Books

Servaes, J. & Patchanee Malikhao Development Communication Approaches

in an International Perspective.Research Cent
er ‘Communication for Social Change’ (CSC), K.U. Bru

Servaes, J. &Malikhao, P. (2008). Development Communication Approaches

in an International Perspective. In Jans Servaes (ed.),
Communication for development and social change (158-179). New
Delhi: Sage Publications.
250
From Modernization to Alternative Paradigm…………………………………………………

Servaes, J., &Malikhao, P. (2008). Development Communication Approaches

in an International Perspective. In Jans Servaes (ed.),
Communication for development and social change (158-179). New
Delhi: Sage Publications.

Servaes, J. (1999). Communication for development: One world, multiple

cultures. New Jersey: Hampton press, inc.
Servaes, J. 1991. “Toward a New Perspective for Communication and
Development.” In Communication in Development, ed. F. L. Casmir,
51–86. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Singhal, A. (1987). Wilbur Schramm: Portrait of a Development

Communication Pioneer. Communicator, 21 (1-4), 18-22.

Searves , J.(2008)Communication for Development and Social Change,

London: Sage Publication

Servaes, Jan (2002) (ed.) ‘Approaches to Development Communication’

Paris: UNESCO

Thomas, P. (1994). Participatory Message Development Communication:

Philosophical Premises. In: White, S.A., Nair, K.S. & Ascroft, J. (eds.),
Participatory Communication: Working for Change and
Development, New Delhi: Sage, pp. 49-59.

Thomas, P. & Lee, P. (eds.) (1996). Media Development, special issue on

Alternative Communication Networks, XLIII(3), London: WACC.

White, R. A. (2008). Grassroots, Participatory communication: Is a new vision

of communication emerging in Africa? African Communication
Research, 1(1), 11-45.
Rogers. E. M. (1976). Communication and Development: The passing of the
dominant
paradigm. In E. M. Rogers (ed.) Communication and Development: Critical
Perspectives. Beverly Hills: Sage publications.

Quebral, N. C. 1975 Development communication. In Jamias, J. F. (ed)

Readings in

251
JEGEDE, Emmanuel

development communication. Los Banos: Department of Development

communication, College of Agriculture, University of Philipines, Los
Banos College, Laguna. Pp1-12

Okunna. C. S. (2002). A quick look at development communication. In C. S.

Okunna
(ed.) Teaching Mass Communication: A Multi-Dimensional Approach.
Enugu:New Generation Books.

252