JUDEA WARRI E.

ALVIOR MS-RD

Community Development as a Strategy to Rural Development

Community Development can be viewed as an approach to rural development. Community

development focuses more on interacting human beings within a geographical boundary whereas rural
development embraces more an ecological perspective. Human settlements are found both in rural, as
well as, urban areas, but rural development programs are designed to affect rural people. Commonly
addressed issues are rural poverty, illiteracy, health, unequal power or the other. Rural development
aims to improve the standard of living of rural people. Thus community development can be viewed as a
strategy to rural development. This paper is composed of two parts; first is the history of the community
development and the second is the history of community development work in the Philippines.

History of Community Development

Community Development has been aiming to achieve through collective efforts, a better life
that has occurred throughout history and viewed from both rural and urban perspectives. It requires
cooperation and innovation for it to be successful.

In the Global North

In the 19th century, the work of the Welsh early socialist thinker Robert Owen (1771-1851),
sought to create a more perfect community. At New Lanark and at later communities such as Oneida in
the USA and the New Australia Movement in Australia, groups of people came together to create
utopian or intentional utopian communities, with mixed success.

In the United States in the 1960s, the term “community development” began to complement
and generally replace the idea of urban renewal, which typically focused on physical development
projects often at the expense of working-class communities. In the late 1960s, philanthropies such as
the Ford Foundation and government official such as Senator Robert F. Kennedy took an interest in local
non-profit organizations—a pioneer was the Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation in Brooklyn—
that attempted to apply business and management skills to the social mission of uplifting low-income
residents and their neighborhoods. Eventually such groups became known as “Community Development
Corporations” or CDCs. Non-profit national organizations such as the Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation (founded in 1978 and now known as Neighbor Works America), the Local Initiatives Support
Corporation (founded in 1980 and known as LISC), and the Enterprise Foundation (founded in 1981)
have built extensive networks of affiliated local non-profit organizations have been credited with
starting the process that stabilized and revived seemingly hopeless inner city areas such as the South
Bronx in New York City.

Meanwhile in Canada, Community Development has roots in the development of cooperatives

and credit unions. The Antigonish Movement which started in the 1920s in Nova Scotia, through the
work of Doctor Moses Coady and Father James Tompkins, has been particularly influential in the
subsequent expansion of community economic development work across Canada.

In the Global South

Community planning techniques drawing on the history of utopian movements became

important in the 1920s and 1930s in East Africa, where Community Development proposals were seen
as a way of helping local people improve their own lives with indirect assistance from colonial
authorities. Mohandas K. Gandhi adopted African community development ideals as a basis of his South
African Ashram, and then introduced it as a part of the Indian Swaraj Movement, aiming at establishing
economic interdependence at village level throughout India. The continuing work of Vinoba Bhave
encouraged grassroots land reform, India under its first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru adopted a
mixed-economy approach, mixing elements of socialism and capitalism. During the fifties and sixties,
India ran a massive community development program with focus on rural development activities
through government support. This was later expanded in scope and was called Integrated Rural
Development Scheme (IRDP). A large number of initiatives that can come under the community
development umbrella have come up in recent years.

In Tanzania, Community Development became part of the Ujamaa Villages established by Julius
Nyerere, where it had some success in assisting with the delivery of education services throughout rural
areas. In the 1970s and 1980s, Community Development became a part of “Integrated Rural
Development,” a strategy promoted by United Nations Agencies and the World Bank. Central to these
policies of community development were

 Adult Literacy Programs, based from the work of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire and the
“Each One Teach One” adult literacy teaching method conceived by Frank Laubach.
 Youth and Women’s Groups following the work of the Serowe Brigades of Botswana, of
Patrick Van Rensburg.
 Development of Community Business Ventures and particularly cooperatives, in part
drawn on the examples of Jose Maria Arizmendiarrieta and the Mondragon
Cooperatives of the Basque Region of Spain.
 Compensatory Education for those missing out in the formal education system, drawing
on the work of Open Education as pioneered by Michael Young.
 Dissemination of Alternatives Technologies, based upon the work of E.F. Schumacher
as advocated in his book Small is Beautiful: Economics as if people really mattered
 Village Nutrition Programs and Permaculture Projects, based upon the work of
Australians Bill Mollison and David Holmgren.
 Village Water Supply Programs.

In the 1990s, following critiques of the mixed success of “top down” government programs, and
drawing on the work of Robert Putnam, in the rediscovery of Social Capital, community development
internationally became concerned with social capital formation. In particular the outstanding success of
the work of Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh with the Grameen Bank, has led to the attempts to spread
microenterprise credit schemes around the world. This work was honored by the 2006 Nobel Peace
Prize.

Literature Cited:

Chigbu, Uchendu Eugene (2012). “Village Renewal as an Instrument of Rural Development: Evidence
from Weyarn, Germany.” Community Development 43 (2): 209-224.
 History of Community Development Work in the Philippines

Development work in the Philippines is being undertaken within the constraints and toward the
solution of the country’s state of underdevelopment.

Philippines underdevelopment has three fundamental features:

1. Neo-colonial control/influence by foreign interests of vital aspects of the nation’s political and
economic life;
2. The monopoly of power by the local elite, resulting in the perpetuation of foreign interests and
the traditional rule of oligarchies; and
3. The persistence of backward and unjust social structure that stunt economic development and
relegate the majority of the Filipino people to a life of poverty and deprivation.

Official policy national development has been based largely on concepts and approaches largely
borrowed from western nations.

Throughout contemporary Philippines history, the national government has adopted foreign
standard and models of development. The bias for western development models can be traced to the
fact that the principal figure in various government administrations have belonged consistently to the
elite minority representing landlord and big business interests. Development policies, thus, have been
oriented toward the priorities of the elite in Philippines society.

Right after World War II, when independence was granted to the Philippines, the
development efforts of private organizations were patterned after their western counterparts.

In many ways the private organizations that ventured into the field of development uncritically
applied western models of development in the Philippines. Development work then was confined to the
traditional civic and emergency relief activities of such agencies as the Community Chest, the Red Cross
or even the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA). The basic motivation for assisting poor
communities or poverty groups was charity or compassion rather than catalyzing for development.

In the 1950s, several private organizations came to prominence by espousing the community
development approach

The communication development concept or its variations was introduced by the European
colonial powers. The basic strategy was to involve rural and urban communities in programs of the
national government. The crucial element in this strategy was harnessing the labor capacity of the
masses in support of government objectives.

The proponents of communication development in the colonies justified its application by

claiming that it was a prerequisite for preparing the local government to pursue development tasks after
independence. Under neocolonial conditions, the approach was modified to suit the objectives of the
national government:

a. Facilitate control of depressed or remote areas:

b. Persuade the masses to conform to government policies and goals, and
c. Institutionalize a system of patronage anchored to the government bureaucracy
 The communication development concept was popularized in the Philippines by the U.S.
government, specifically through its Agency on International Development (USAID). The Magsaysay
government wielded the strategy as a comprehensive counterinsurgency measure.

On the other hand, private organizations were either pressured or enticed to adopt the approach
since USAID was then the major source of funding and material assistance for what was then construed
as development work. But in so doing, programs and projects of the private organizations became part
and parcel of the government’s counterinsurgency campaign.

Community development, as practiced by private organizations in the Philippines, emphasized the

involvement of target groups only in the implementation stage of program/projects and primarily
through contribution of labor.

The rationale was to make the beneficiaries feel that they “own” the program/project although they
were not decisive participants in its formulation or management. It was assumed that program/project
implementation would be more efficient if beneficiaries acquired such a sense of “ownership”. Critical
aspect of the program/project were therefore relegated to the affective control of so-called expects.

Techniques evolved through the practice of communication development were refined by many
private organizations which later on adopted the NGO title.

But the main source of insights and expertise came from the experience of the Presidential Assistant
on Community Development (PACD), a government agency created during the Magsaysay
Administration. The principal sources of PACD funding were the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and
USAID.

The role of PACD was to organize the barrios throughout the country and coordinate the delivery of
basic services from government and private organizations. The objective of PACD was to create a
psychological impact on the citizenry who were then being exposed to or participating in revolutionary
struggles.

An offshoot of the counterinsurgency experiment using the community development approach

was the creation of local private organizations with links to covert organizations of the U.S.
Government.

One of the more well-known was Operation-Brotherhood, a private organization specializing in

“socio-medical” activities in slum resettlements and remote rural communities. It was found out later
that the local projects of Operation-Brotherhood were part of a training program to prepare its
members for deployment in Laos and Vietnam where its refugee assistance work was being sponsored
by the CIA. In fact, during the Vietnam War, former PACD personnel were recruited by the U.S.
government for communication development.

The tradition of blending community development with counterinsurgency still continues. Most of
the private organizations are now know as NGOs and are affiliated to foreign humanitarian or
evangelical organizations that form a network of support to the Low-Intensity-Conflict (LIC) doctrine of
the U.S. government.
 The expansion in the number of private organizations involved in various aspects of development
started in the early 1960s.

This coincided with disbandment of the PACD due to political intramural within the government and
the perceived decline of the insurgency problem. By this time, private organizations had acquired the
title of distinction as NGOs.

Finding no specific government agency to undertake community development, the private

organizations took it upon themselves to fill the vacuum of social responsibility. Since they lacked the
resource capability of government, the private organizations specialized in particular development
concerns (e.g., health, nutrition, emergency relief, agricultural production, etc.).

The private organizations followed the line of PACD by confining their work principally to delivery of
basic services. Most organizing work undertaken was limited to the level of merely preparing the poor
communities or poverty groups in receiving services. As such, they viewed their role as civic extensions
of government.

People’s empowerment or its educational component was still a remote development concept
which the private organizations felt was a matter of political choice best left to the militant mass
organizations.

The growth of private organizations or NGOs was also stimulated by a widely accepted view that
the Philippines is in a chronic state of socioeconomic emergency.

Although this view was recognized as a valid one, its proponents failed to delve into or resisted a
much deeper analysis of the fundamental causes of underdevelopment. The efforts of private
organizations were then directed at tackling “symptoms” rather than “underlying causes” of
socioeconomic problems.

This resulted in a modified approach to community development with emergency relief operations
under non-disaster conditions being a focal or entry point to the communities. The more active
supporters of this approach were foreign humanitarian organizations, like the Catholic Relief Services
(CRS) and Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere (CARE). Local private and religious organizations
became the local conduits for funding and relief commodities.

Most of the emergency assistance was and still linked to foreign government grants and soft-loan
arrangement involving the dumping of agricultural surplus products into the country (e.g., U.S. Public
Law 480 and its Food for Peace Program).

CRS and CARE, for instance, coordinate their annual program with USAID. The annual country
program of USAID, on the other hand, must get the approval of the U.S. State Department. That is why
food aid meant to alleviate the child malnutrition problem is usually linked to a commodity loan
requiring the importation of flour, cotton, rice or other surplus products from the U.S.

Other international development organizations serve as sources of “dole-out” commodities (e.g.,

corn-soya milk, bulgur flour, etc.). The World Food Program of the United Nations and the European
Economic Community (EEC) have been involved in facilitating the entry of foreign agricultural surplus
through local nutrition projects and health projects with supplement feeding components, but instead
of solving the problems for which the aid was intended, the Philippine government on foreign assistance
while the socioeconomic emergency endures.
 In the late 1960s and the early 1970s quite a number of private organizations and foundations
were formed along NGO patterns

Many of these served as tax shelters for large business companies and affluent families. Through a
modified community development approach, the private organizations and foundations stressed the
imparting of entrepreneurial skills to poverty groups and provision of seed capital for engaging in small-
scale livelihood projects. They held the view that opportunities for engaging in livelihood ventures and
an acquired capacity for entrepreneurship are the basic elements that would emancipate the poor from
conditions of poverty.

To the credit of some of these private organizations and foundations, social (e.g., nutritional, health,
etc.) and livelihood components were integrated into a common project or program. The importance of
infusing income-generating activities in development work was also demonstrated. It was further
stressed that intensive management and technical training activities are required if a community
organization or sectoral groups are to engage in serious socio-economic activities, effectively and
successfully.

The emphasis on entrepreneurship, however, led to neglect in correlating communal problems to

the larger national situation or to the historical roots of underdevelopment. For some private
organizations and foundations, the success of a livelihood project became an end in itself.

Efforts at advancing the social consciousness of the masses were minimal. This also held true even in
terms of making people aware that livelihood gains from projects can only be sustained in the long term
by altering the exploitative and oppressive conditions in society in general. That is why in some cases,
the “new” barrio entrepreneurs, those who have succeeded in their livelihood projects, acquire a
particular social posture or status that make them “sub-elite” among the poor.

While the private organizations and the foundations were tinkering with community development
approaches, the mass movement through People’s Organizations (POS) consistently made efforts to
institute a fundamental change in the Philippine Society as a whole, specifically in terms of redressing
the inequitable distribution of wealth.

The variety of means employed by the mass movement ranged from trade union-building to armed
rebellion (e.g. Huk Rebellion). The national government has turn constantly frustrated the demands and
initiative of the mass movement, thus giving rise to the growth of a social consciousness based on
conflict of class interests or the antagonistic relationship between “oppressors” and the “oppressed.”
From the start it was clear to the POs that development must have a determining bias. If traditional
government efforts serve the interests of the elite minority, then development work must serve the
interests of the masses.

The marked response to the militant tradition of the mass movement was greatly felt in the years
after the declaration of martial law when various progressive sectors of society actively supported the
creation of NGOs.

These NGOs were moved to action in support of the Pos which bore the brunt of political repression
under the Marcos regime. The development workers of NGOs came from the ranks of students, service
professional, intellectuals and religious volunteers.
 Propelled by the intensity of events during the martial law years, the NGOs and POs actively
engaged in community organizing activities.

The creation of organizational forums and actual organizations in communities and among social
sectors became a pivotal factor in mobilizing the people for political and socio-economic purposes.

With active NGO intervention, the POs gained access to external assistance and technical skills for
implementing socio-economic projects. This improved their capability to plan projects. The development
work of NGOs acquired greater significance with the attempts of POs to build socio-economic
infrastructures (e.g. cooperatives, communal farms, etc.) to ensure sustained efforts and development.

The mass movement provided the imperatives of development work.

In contrast, private organizations pursuing community development efforts conducted their work
out of civic/humanitarian concern or a perceived role to support government efforts.

On the other hand, the NGOs acquired the militancy of the mass movement and adopted as their
mandate the provision of services or support to POs. During the Marcos regime, the NGOs became a
vital factor in the growth of mass movement. Many NGOs and POs would later be known as cause-
oriented organizations. They created the conditions that would lead to the overthrow of the Marcos
dictatorship.

At present, NGOs are either engaged in sectoral or multi-sectoral activities.

A sector is viewed either in term of development work categories (e.g. health, education, cultural,
science and appropriate technology, etc.). Most NGOs are established along the lines of development
work and most POs along social groupings.

At a certain point, the need arose for NGOs to service a number or a cluster of sectoral concerns,
across development work categories and social groupings. The rationale was that problems of the poor
are inter-related and the problems of one social group directly or indirectly affect another. NGOs
therefore evolved the response to refine development work. Efforts at integration of development
concern came to be known as socio-economic work.

Social institutions, like universities and various religious organizations, have broadened their
service concerns by actually engaging in development work, principally through outreach, extension
and social action projects programs.

The programs or projects of these established institutions are highly dependent or influenced by the
leadership in power, thus, the social action program of a particular diocese maybe conservative or
progressive in orientation, depending on the personal beliefs or views of the bishop. A social outreach or
extension program of a particular university may likewise promote a particular development approach
depending on the political clout of those responsible for project activities.

The imperatives of socio-economic work have resulted in close coordination and cooperation
between NGOs/POs and organizations engaged in research studies, information gathering and
processing, management and technical skills training and human rights advocacy.

The role of these organizations has gained added importance, especially under repressive political
conditions. Their specialized efforts are currently viewed as integral to development work.
 There is a tendency in the present situation to make ideological or political distinctions among
NGOs.

Such a move maybe perceived as an attempt to drive a wedge within the NGO ranks or discredit
support for the mass movement.

In practice, the distinction is more a question of strategy and commitment. There are NGOs that
have made collaborative arrangements with government and those that maintain their independence
from government. Based on experience, most NGOs are wary of government intervention in their
operations and of outright cooptation. Most NGOs seek to maintain their integrity as an instrument of
social change by working closer with the masses rather than by acquiring a niche within the government
machinery.

There are three major reasons why NGOs choose to remain outside the effective influence of
government:

1. To support their contention that the government is not working for the fundamental rights and
just demands of the people
2. To have flexibility in criticizing government policies and programs
3. To maintain their creativity in responding to problems of the people.

In many cases, private organizations that masquerade as NGOs have been coopted or used by
government to legitimize its actions or to pursue counter-insurgency rather than development goals.

Literature Cited:

Council for People’s Development (CPD). People’s Development Agenda: A Review of Development Work
in the Philippines. 1989