Introduction
The realization of development from grassroots population is quite a complex process, this is a phenomenon that is open for wider debate but it is imperative to indicate that the potential of Community economic development and local economic development (LED/CED) cannot be down played in as far as micro level participation and contribution on the development front is concerned. At the foremost it is important to acknowledge the impact of global capitalism and its influence on the domestic, as well as on the South African people’s social life. It is worthy noting that the advent of neo-liberal policies on the economic market system meant the reduction in the states responsibility over its people, thus people’s welfare, is left to the market forces.
Through privatization of parasitatals- (government companies), opening up of the markets through reduction of tariff barriers and de-regulization of the labour rules and removal of subsidies on essential goods, we see a situation in which peoples social economic life is at the mercy of transnational companies who dictate the pace of the market, they have taken control of the states, and governments are at their mercy as well, dancing to their tunes and demands. It is this situation that has led to the closure of local industries especially in textile because they cannot with stand the pressure exerted on them by the large multi national companies, thus resulting into heavy job losses and an increase in poverty at the grass roots- in essence capitalism has enlarged the gap between the poor and the rich, as Shragge (1993:7) puts it “the consequences of these economic changes is an expanding bottom and shrinking middle stratum. More and more people are subject to periods of unemployment and precarious short term jobs”.
With this realization it is therefore imperative to start looking at feasible alternatives to development, that which is inclusive and empowers the people; it is only through endogenous efforts to change their own lives that true and meaningful development can be realized and it is at this plane that CED/LED becomes a ray of hope to people’s socioeconomic lives.
The role and potential of CED and LED as a micro level response to underdevelopment.
Community economic development and local economic development are conceptualized around the involvement of the people, the marginalized- women, the youths, the elderly and prostitutes. It seeks to understand the existing potential and socio- economic resources in the community and it is imperative to appreciate that the grassroots population is quite rich and potent in resources that are in hibernation, thus CED/LEDs role is to arouse the ‘docile’ resources from the grassroots to be directed into meaningful usage that would not only benefit the development of the population and the community but also “it was found out that, whenever people were locally involved and actively participating, in the projects, much more was achieved with much less, even in sheer financial terms”, (Rahnema, M, 1992:117).
It is again important to appreciate that poverty is a genesis of a lot of social economic problems like inadequate health facilities, poor schools and de-motivated teachers, high crime levels, prostitution and etcetera- it is therefore important to appreciate that the eradication of these social ills can only be achieved through multi sectoral involvement that includes the grassroots. This therefore underlines the need for grassroots empowerment policies, it is important to note that the emphasis of CED/LED is development of self reliant and sustainable development; this can be achieved through creation of job opportunities and increasing diversity in local production. It is at this far important to note the importance of local markets; they provide a platform on which local economic development can be sustained by ensuring that money is sustained in the population. Through local markets diversity and economic empowerment of the local populace is achieved- at the same time it is important to appreciate that it is about time that we started deconstructing colonization of the mind that inhibits local production and growth through buying of foreign and imported goods this according to Harrison et al (2003:118) helps to “plug the leaks in the economy”. It is important to note that CED/LED activities if entrenched in a larger section of the grassroots are viable means of uplifting the disadvantaged majority in a more dignified and holistic effort, for it is worthy noting that with increased participation on the development front, it equally entails greater gains for the local government in terms of taxes and other tariffs which equally mean a better service delivery of essential services of health, education and sanitation.
The effectiveness of Local economic development and community economic development in grassroots development is an imperative alternative to trickle down approach articulated In GEAR, CED/LED allows the local populace to show their creative potentials by reinventing wealth from natural resources in more sustainable means and at the same time; it is imperative to note that participation in decentralized development brings power to the people, power that liberates the people from structural poverty, thus enabling them to be in control of their lives and be part of a whole political process. It is at the same time important to appreciate that CED/LED enables the previously disadvantaged and isolated to be part of the community process once again and it is imperative to note that “membership in a group provides a source of emotional support and identity, a security in one’s being, based on love and affection- quite apart from one’s value in an economic sense……… Such a group serves as a mediating structure, insulating the individual from the shocks of the larger society within which he or she is only one among faceless millions”, (Korten, C .D, 1990:303). It is thus imperative to appreciate that one of the fundamental values of CED/LED is to build communities that are bound by the desire to contribute to the social and economic development and at the same time achieve a self sufficient and sustainable livelihood for its members which fosters the development and nurturance of a community identity that is founded and grounded upon sharing of similar background, future goals and objectives and at the same time collective management and utilization of inorganic and organic resources (natural and man made resources).
It is at this far important to indicate that both the national and provincial governments have a greater responsibility over their citizens by ensuring that they promote the development of pro-poor policies that foster the entrenchment of CED/LED activities at the grassroots. For it is important to appreciate that the governments (national, provincial and local) have a great political and economic capacity to entrench development to the masses through the CED/LED initiatives- governments can be part of a broader process of ensuring that there is a constructive partnership between non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the grassroots initiatives-(co-operations, trusts, community based organizations) and the government itself. It is worthy saying that the NGOs and government can play a crucial role in ensuring that the initiatives are supported in their infancy stages while at the same time being mindful that autonomy of these local initiatives is not compromised, for autonomy inculcates power in the people- power over their choices and decisions and this with active participation and true involvement of the people at every stage of the CED/LED activities, from planning, implementation and even evaluation inoculates and acculturates development to the masses which bears the promise of acceptance and sustainability. This however may not go well with the governments and donors who tend to impose their own values and specifics which they usually attach to their support. It is thus crucial to realize that CED/LED are community initiatives that are independent of the government, and that peoples power is quite central to their sustainability and thus it is important to shrug off donor and government domination as (Nozick 1993:31) put “domination dehumanizes and engenders feelings of helplessness and dependency in people, empowerment through self knowledge (power within) and active participation with others (power with) liberates people from feelings of dependency”.
It is equally important to note that the local government and the private sector play an important role in facilitating community economic development, the development and contribution of infrastructure plays a crucial role in economic and social empowerment, the development of roads, buildings and creation of museums and parks ensures that communities realize development that is holistic and integrates every aspect of human life, but at the same time that which preserves and consolidates cultural values of its people. To achieve development that is sustainable and that which is ecologically conscience, it thus has to be ecologically sustainable; this then means that people and natural resources have to be mutually constitutive and it is therefore a false assumption and perception that “nature is an object outside of ourselves, to be harnessed, conquered and divided up for profit. What we have forgotten in the frenzy to control and dominate nature is that, we too, are nature” Nozik (1993: 23)
The development of local communities and their economic and social lives largely depends on the policies being implemented by the both national and local government, it is worthy noting that deliberate choices on the part of the government to procure its needed supplies from the local small medium and micro-enterprises (SMMEs) can go along way in promoting local investments and expansion of the local capital base which is essential in bolstering the monetary circulation, availability and at the same time increasing local purchasing power. It is important to mention that the promotion of SMMEs enables the development of jobs in the informal sector and that this is an integral part of social capital development- with job creation there is reduction in poverty and an improvement in family lives as well as relationships. It is this that makes it imperative that in the formulation of integrated development plans (IDPs), the communities have to be involved for they know their needs better and it is worthy to observe that at the heart of local economic and community economic development is equal partnership, that which acknowledges the availability and potentials in the grassroots.
Challenges of micro level development through CED and LED in South Africa
At the foremost it is imperative to note the impact of the macro economic policies that the government is implementing, in this case the Growth, employment and redistribution- GEAR. As a macroeconomic strategy, it borrows its values and is basically informed by capitalism ethos of private profit accumulation, reinvestments, and trickle down, in its language redistribution. It is at this far, fair to say that much as this has for the past years managed to achieve an economic growth- trickle down or redistribution has failed. It has thus failed the majority of the South Africans because poverty levels have grown and the gap between the few rich and the poor has continued to widen. It is again then fair to say that the states policies at the top have got a bigger impact at the bottom, in that economic stagnation or instability propagates massive poverty at the micro level. It is at this level where we see massive evictions from homes because people cannot pay rent, because they have been victims of closure of textile industry which cannot stand the pressure from the ever increasing cheap Chinese garments and fabrics. It is in this same premise that we see the facilitation of the local economic development by the state and mainstream bureaucracy as a problematic front. Observations would easily indicate that this facilitates community disintegration in which the focus is on the elite of the society and the better of the poor who can be reached. The state as a driver of the CED and LED initiatives would give rise to the replica of problems like experienced due to the in adequacy of the GEAR economic policy to meet the needs of the grassroots majority who are in the periphery of the economic benefits being enjoyed by the nation and painfully enough, these poor and marginalized of the society are the ones who are afflicted most by the blunt side of globalization of the economy, as Hindson and Vicente-Hindson (2005:3) puts it ‘the logic of globalization is not only a logic of integration; it is also a logic of exclusion and differentiation….Some parts of countries become linked into the world economy while others are de-linked from global flows and remain invisible or irrelevant’. If true LED/CED are to be achieved it is imperative for the government to allow true decentralization that capacitates the communities by enabling them to be able partners- this then stresses the need to identify the communities short falls in skills and competencies; and it can only be achieved if a mutual partnership is entrenched in the LED and CED objectives and ethos.
In conclusion, if Community economic development and local economic development are to bear the true fruits ascribed to them that of: creation of community identity, reduction of poverty and improvement of sustainable livelihoods, opportunity exploration and promotion of people centered development then it is imperative to say that a mutual partnership of the mainstream and the communities on the ground should be an imperative ethos for every LED/CED efforts; in which the passive marginalized, poor women, the aged, the disabled and the active economic players, the elite of the society and the business and the private sector work together in unison with local governments and the provincial governments under the banner of facilitating development that is inclusive of everyone and that which fosters community social economic growth and sustainable green environments that recreate and advance integrated healthy living and permissive of cultural and socio economic diversity.
References
Harrison, K, et al, 2003: Implementing the developmental mandate: achieving local economic development in Reddy, P.S, et al, 2003: Local government financing and development in Southern Africa, Oxford University Press, Cape Town, South Africa
Hindson, D. and Vicente-Hindson, V, 2005: Wither LED in South Africa- http://sds.ukzn.ac.za/files/Hindson%20.pdf accessed on 12th March, 2007, 11:30am.
Korten, C. D, 1990, Getting to the 21st Century: Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda. Kumarian press
Nozik, M, 1993, Five principles of sustainable development, in Shragge, E, Community economic development: in search of empowerment, Black rose books, Canada.
Rahnema, M, 1992, Poverty in Sachs, W, 1992: The Development Dictionary. London: Zed Books
Shragge, E: Community economic development: In search of empowerment and alternatives, Black Rose Books, Canada
The realization of development from grassroots population is quite a complex process, this is a phenomenon that is open for wider debate but it is imperative to indicate that the potential of Community economic development and local economic development (LED/CED) cannot be down played in as far as micro level participation and contribution on the development front is concerned. At the foremost it is important to acknowledge the impact of global capitalism and its influence on the domestic, as well as on the South African people’s social life. It is worthy noting that the advent of neo-liberal policies on the economic market system meant the reduction in the states responsibility over its people, thus people’s welfare, is left to the market forces.
Through privatization of parasitatals- (government companies), opening up of the markets through reduction of tariff barriers and de-regulization of the labour rules and removal of subsidies on essential goods, we see a situation in which peoples social economic life is at the mercy of transnational companies who dictate the pace of the market, they have taken control of the states, and governments are at their mercy as well, dancing to their tunes and demands. It is this situation that has led to the closure of local industries especially in textile because they cannot with stand the pressure exerted on them by the large multi national companies, thus resulting into heavy job losses and an increase in poverty at the grass roots- in essence capitalism has enlarged the gap between the poor and the rich, as Shragge (1993:7) puts it “the consequences of these economic changes is an expanding bottom and shrinking middle stratum. More and more people are subject to periods of unemployment and precarious short term jobs”.
With this realization it is therefore imperative to start looking at feasible alternatives to development, that which is inclusive and empowers the people; it is only through endogenous efforts to change their own lives that true and meaningful development can be realized and it is at this plane that CED/LED becomes a ray of hope to people’s socioeconomic lives.
The role and potential of CED and LED as a micro level response to underdevelopment.
Community economic development and local economic development are conceptualized around the involvement of the people, the marginalized- women, the youths, the elderly and prostitutes. It seeks to understand the existing potential and socio- economic resources in the community and it is imperative to appreciate that the grassroots population is quite rich and potent in resources that are in hibernation, thus CED/LEDs role is to arouse the ‘docile’ resources from the grassroots to be directed into meaningful usage that would not only benefit the development of the population and the community but also “it was found out that, whenever people were locally involved and actively participating, in the projects, much more was achieved with much less, even in sheer financial terms”, (Rahnema, M, 1992:117).
It is again important to appreciate that poverty is a genesis of a lot of social economic problems like inadequate health facilities, poor schools and de-motivated teachers, high crime levels, prostitution and etcetera- it is therefore important to appreciate that the eradication of these social ills can only be achieved through multi sectoral involvement that includes the grassroots. This therefore underlines the need for grassroots empowerment policies, it is important to note that the emphasis of CED/LED is development of self reliant and sustainable development; this can be achieved through creation of job opportunities and increasing diversity in local production. It is at this far important to note the importance of local markets; they provide a platform on which local economic development can be sustained by ensuring that money is sustained in the population. Through local markets diversity and economic empowerment of the local populace is achieved- at the same time it is important to appreciate that it is about time that we started deconstructing colonization of the mind that inhibits local production and growth through buying of foreign and imported goods this according to Harrison et al (2003:118) helps to “plug the leaks in the economy”. It is important to note that CED/LED activities if entrenched in a larger section of the grassroots are viable means of uplifting the disadvantaged majority in a more dignified and holistic effort, for it is worthy noting that with increased participation on the development front, it equally entails greater gains for the local government in terms of taxes and other tariffs which equally mean a better service delivery of essential services of health, education and sanitation.
The effectiveness of Local economic development and community economic development in grassroots development is an imperative alternative to trickle down approach articulated In GEAR, CED/LED allows the local populace to show their creative potentials by reinventing wealth from natural resources in more sustainable means and at the same time; it is imperative to note that participation in decentralized development brings power to the people, power that liberates the people from structural poverty, thus enabling them to be in control of their lives and be part of a whole political process. It is at the same time important to appreciate that CED/LED enables the previously disadvantaged and isolated to be part of the community process once again and it is imperative to note that “membership in a group provides a source of emotional support and identity, a security in one’s being, based on love and affection- quite apart from one’s value in an economic sense……… Such a group serves as a mediating structure, insulating the individual from the shocks of the larger society within which he or she is only one among faceless millions”, (Korten, C .D, 1990:303). It is thus imperative to appreciate that one of the fundamental values of CED/LED is to build communities that are bound by the desire to contribute to the social and economic development and at the same time achieve a self sufficient and sustainable livelihood for its members which fosters the development and nurturance of a community identity that is founded and grounded upon sharing of similar background, future goals and objectives and at the same time collective management and utilization of inorganic and organic resources (natural and man made resources).
It is at this far important to indicate that both the national and provincial governments have a greater responsibility over their citizens by ensuring that they promote the development of pro-poor policies that foster the entrenchment of CED/LED activities at the grassroots. For it is important to appreciate that the governments (national, provincial and local) have a great political and economic capacity to entrench development to the masses through the CED/LED initiatives- governments can be part of a broader process of ensuring that there is a constructive partnership between non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the grassroots initiatives-(co-operations, trusts, community based organizations) and the government itself. It is worthy saying that the NGOs and government can play a crucial role in ensuring that the initiatives are supported in their infancy stages while at the same time being mindful that autonomy of these local initiatives is not compromised, for autonomy inculcates power in the people- power over their choices and decisions and this with active participation and true involvement of the people at every stage of the CED/LED activities, from planning, implementation and even evaluation inoculates and acculturates development to the masses which bears the promise of acceptance and sustainability. This however may not go well with the governments and donors who tend to impose their own values and specifics which they usually attach to their support. It is thus crucial to realize that CED/LED are community initiatives that are independent of the government, and that peoples power is quite central to their sustainability and thus it is important to shrug off donor and government domination as (Nozick 1993:31) put “domination dehumanizes and engenders feelings of helplessness and dependency in people, empowerment through self knowledge (power within) and active participation with others (power with) liberates people from feelings of dependency”.
It is equally important to note that the local government and the private sector play an important role in facilitating community economic development, the development and contribution of infrastructure plays a crucial role in economic and social empowerment, the development of roads, buildings and creation of museums and parks ensures that communities realize development that is holistic and integrates every aspect of human life, but at the same time that which preserves and consolidates cultural values of its people. To achieve development that is sustainable and that which is ecologically conscience, it thus has to be ecologically sustainable; this then means that people and natural resources have to be mutually constitutive and it is therefore a false assumption and perception that “nature is an object outside of ourselves, to be harnessed, conquered and divided up for profit. What we have forgotten in the frenzy to control and dominate nature is that, we too, are nature” Nozik (1993: 23)
The development of local communities and their economic and social lives largely depends on the policies being implemented by the both national and local government, it is worthy noting that deliberate choices on the part of the government to procure its needed supplies from the local small medium and micro-enterprises (SMMEs) can go along way in promoting local investments and expansion of the local capital base which is essential in bolstering the monetary circulation, availability and at the same time increasing local purchasing power. It is important to mention that the promotion of SMMEs enables the development of jobs in the informal sector and that this is an integral part of social capital development- with job creation there is reduction in poverty and an improvement in family lives as well as relationships. It is this that makes it imperative that in the formulation of integrated development plans (IDPs), the communities have to be involved for they know their needs better and it is worthy to observe that at the heart of local economic and community economic development is equal partnership, that which acknowledges the availability and potentials in the grassroots.
Challenges of micro level development through CED and LED in South Africa
At the foremost it is imperative to note the impact of the macro economic policies that the government is implementing, in this case the Growth, employment and redistribution- GEAR. As a macroeconomic strategy, it borrows its values and is basically informed by capitalism ethos of private profit accumulation, reinvestments, and trickle down, in its language redistribution. It is at this far, fair to say that much as this has for the past years managed to achieve an economic growth- trickle down or redistribution has failed. It has thus failed the majority of the South Africans because poverty levels have grown and the gap between the few rich and the poor has continued to widen. It is again then fair to say that the states policies at the top have got a bigger impact at the bottom, in that economic stagnation or instability propagates massive poverty at the micro level. It is at this level where we see massive evictions from homes because people cannot pay rent, because they have been victims of closure of textile industry which cannot stand the pressure from the ever increasing cheap Chinese garments and fabrics. It is in this same premise that we see the facilitation of the local economic development by the state and mainstream bureaucracy as a problematic front. Observations would easily indicate that this facilitates community disintegration in which the focus is on the elite of the society and the better of the poor who can be reached. The state as a driver of the CED and LED initiatives would give rise to the replica of problems like experienced due to the in adequacy of the GEAR economic policy to meet the needs of the grassroots majority who are in the periphery of the economic benefits being enjoyed by the nation and painfully enough, these poor and marginalized of the society are the ones who are afflicted most by the blunt side of globalization of the economy, as Hindson and Vicente-Hindson (2005:3) puts it ‘the logic of globalization is not only a logic of integration; it is also a logic of exclusion and differentiation….Some parts of countries become linked into the world economy while others are de-linked from global flows and remain invisible or irrelevant’. If true LED/CED are to be achieved it is imperative for the government to allow true decentralization that capacitates the communities by enabling them to be able partners- this then stresses the need to identify the communities short falls in skills and competencies; and it can only be achieved if a mutual partnership is entrenched in the LED and CED objectives and ethos.
In conclusion, if Community economic development and local economic development are to bear the true fruits ascribed to them that of: creation of community identity, reduction of poverty and improvement of sustainable livelihoods, opportunity exploration and promotion of people centered development then it is imperative to say that a mutual partnership of the mainstream and the communities on the ground should be an imperative ethos for every LED/CED efforts; in which the passive marginalized, poor women, the aged, the disabled and the active economic players, the elite of the society and the business and the private sector work together in unison with local governments and the provincial governments under the banner of facilitating development that is inclusive of everyone and that which fosters community social economic growth and sustainable green environments that recreate and advance integrated healthy living and permissive of cultural and socio economic diversity.
References
Harrison, K, et al, 2003: Implementing the developmental mandate: achieving local economic development in Reddy, P.S, et al, 2003: Local government financing and development in Southern Africa, Oxford University Press, Cape Town, South Africa
Hindson, D. and Vicente-Hindson, V, 2005: Wither LED in South Africa- http://sds.ukzn.ac.za/files/Hindson%20.pdf accessed on 12th March, 2007, 11:30am.
Korten, C. D, 1990, Getting to the 21st Century: Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda. Kumarian press
Nozik, M, 1993, Five principles of sustainable development, in Shragge, E, Community economic development: in search of empowerment, Black rose books, Canada.
Rahnema, M, 1992, Poverty in Sachs, W, 1992: The Development Dictionary. London: Zed Books
Shragge, E: Community economic development: In search of empowerment and alternatives, Black Rose Books, Canada
Wiley Dave for the Photo
No comments:
Post a Comment