INTRODUCTION

Community development is about utilizing traditional institutions and creativity for self-help
projects. Whereby people will use their traditional institutions and creativity to initiate self-help
projects aimed at responding positively to the problems of their environment. Although the onus
for initiating such projects lies with the members of the community, they do not necessarily have
to conclude them alone. Filani (2000) defines community development as a people-centered
action: a process of social action in which people of the community organize themselves for the
identification of their needs, planning and act with maximum reliance on their own resources,
complemented by government and voluntary organization. According to Bennett, (1973) ,
community development is the deliberate attempt by community people to work together to
guide the future of theircommunities, and the development of a corresponding set of techniques
for assistingcommunity people in such a process. Many community development efforts are
essentially efforts to help community residents understand what is happening and recognise some
of the choices they face in order to achieve the future community they desire. (Shafer, 1990).
The capacity of people to work collectively in addressing their common interests” (Maseru,
1997).
LOCALITY PARTICIPATION MODEL
The Locality Participation Model (LPM) is a framework used to describe and analyze the
participation of local communities in decision-making processes, particularly in the context of
natural resource management and environmental governance.
By understanding the locality participation model, we can better understand how to promote
effective community engagement and inclusive decision-making processes (Demartoto, 2009).
Transformation in the community will take place optimally if all elements of the local
community participate actively. In the era of decentralized development starting from the
village, welfare of the community can be achieved from the independence of the village by
optimizing the utilization of its local potential.
According to (Hikmat, 2010) The Locality participation model typically considers the following
elements:
1. Levels of participation: How involved are local communities in decision-making processes?
Are they simply informed, consulted, or do they have decision-making power?
2. Locality: Which geographic area or community is being considered? This could be a village,
town, or region.
3. Stakeholders: Who are the individuals or groups within the locality that are affected by or
have an interest in the decision-making process?
4. Institutions: What are the local institutions, such as government agencies, NGOs, or
community organizations, that play a role in decision-making and participation?
5. Power dynamics: How do power relationships between stakeholders and institutions influence
participation and decision-making?
The Locality Participation Model can help identify strengths and weaknesses in local
participation and inform strategies to improve community engagement and decision-making
processes.
By understanding the locality participation model, we can better understand how to promote
effective community engagement and inclusive decision-making processes.
SOCIAL ACTION MODEL
Social action can be undertaken by the elites exclusively without the participation of the masses.
It can also be carried out by the elites with a greater or lesser degree of participation of the
clientele. It can also be initiated and led entirely by the beneficiaries or the community people
themselves. To exemplify, in one type or model, certain elite people initiate and social action
without involving the target population. In another way or model, the target population takes up
the total charge of the social movement in its own hands, though under the guidance of their
leaders.
There are two main models of social action as given by Britto (1984). They Are:
1) Elitist Social Action
2) Popular Social Action
When social action is carried out by the elite exclusively or with marginal participation of the
masses,it is termed as ‘elitist social action’. Elite social action is essentially a group action. It is
the action initiated and conducted by the elites for the benefit of the masses. In this model of
social action, general public or the target group is not involved.
The three sub-models of elitist social action are:
Legislative Social Action Model: It is a process in which elite groups conduct studies on the
gravity, extent and urgency of the problems, create public opinion and lobby to try to modify the
social policy.
Economic Sanction Model: In this type of social action, the elites, by gaining control over some
economic, social, political or religious weapon try to obtain benefits for the society.
Direct Physical Model: It is a process where elites take the law in their own hands and punish
those responsible for the cause of injustice and thus try to bring about benefits to their clientele.
POPULAR SOCIAL ACTION
The other model of social action is termed ‘popular social action’ in which either the elite
incorporate the clientele in the process or the beneficiaries themselves carry it out. T is the
second type of social action model given by Britto. In the popular social action model, a large
section of people with or without elite participation is involved. They aim their confrontational
conflictive action against the unjust and dehumanizing structures, agencies policies, procedures
or oppressive agents. Direct mobilization model, dialectical model and the conscientization
models are the sub-types of popular social action.
SOCIAL PLANNING MODEL
Social planning is the process of identifying and addressing the social needs of a community,
region, or nation. It involves analyzing social issues, identifying goals and objectives, and
developing strategies to achieve them. Social planning plays a crucial role in creating equitable
and sustainable communities by providing a framework for decision-making and resource
allocation. Without effective social planning, societies may struggle to meet the needs of their
citizens, resulting in inequality, poverty, and social unrest. (Fainstein, 2010).
There are different models of social planning that have been developed over the years, each with
its own strengths and weaknesses. These models differ in their approach to decision-making,
resource allocation, and community involvement. They are the top-down model, the bottom-up
model, the participatory model, and the mixed model. To determine which model of social
planning is best suited to a particular situation, it’s important to consider the unique needs and
conditions of the community or issue being addressed. Factors such as the level of community
involvement desired, the availability of resources, and the complexity of the issue being
addressed should all be taken into account. By carefully considering each approach and weighing
the advantages and disadvantages of each, it’s possible to choose a model of social planning that
will be most effective in achieving the desired outcomes (Friedmann, 1987).
DIFFUSION MODEL
The Diffusion Model in community development refers to the process by which new ideas,
innovations, or practices spread and are adopted within a community. This model is often used to
understand how community development initiatives, such as new technologies, policies, or
programs, are disseminated and taken up by community members.
The Diffusion Model was first introduced by Everett Rogers in 1962 and has since been widely
used in various fields, including community development, public health, and education.
The model identifies five key elements that influence the diffusion process:
1. Innovation: The new idea, practice, or technology being introduced.
2. Communication channels: How information about the innovation is disseminated (e.g., social
media, word of mouth, training sessions).
3. Time: The length of time it takes for the innovation to be adopted.
4. Social system: The social structures, norms, and relationships within the community that
influence adoption.
5. Individuals: The characteristics and behaviors of community members that affect their
likelihood of adopting the innovation.
Understanding the Diffusion Model can help community development practitioners design more
effective strategies for disseminating new ideas and promoting adoption within communities.
Several recent studies used the diffusion decision model (DDM) to examine the mechanisms
underlying the effects of social influence on perceptual decision-making (Germar et al., 2014,
2016). These studies showed that social influence can bias the accumulation of sensory
information during perceptual decision-making. Notwithstanding the importance of this research,
we argue that these studies have largely neglected the idea that social identification is the basis of
social influence, that is, being aware of one’s social identity as an in-group member. This is the
fundamental assumption of the social identity approach to social influence, which is grounded in
self-categorisation theory (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hogg & Turner, 1987; Turner et al., 1987).
Here, we aim to advance research on the underlying cognitive mechanisms of social influence by
combining a DDM analysis with the social identity approach to social influence.

References
Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990).
Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the
nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 29(2), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8309.1990.tb00892.x

Germar, M., Schlemmer, A., Krug, K., Voss, A., & Mojzisch, A. (2014). Social influence and
perceptual decision making: A diffusion model analysis. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 40(2), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213508985
Germar, M., Albrecht, T., Voss, A., & Mojzisch, A. (2016). Social conformity is due to biased
stimulus processing: Electrophysiological and diffusion analyses. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 11(9), 1449–1459. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw050.
Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Social identity and conformity: A theory of
referent information influence. In W. Doise & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Current
issues in European social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 139–182). Cambridge
University Press.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S.
(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil
Blackwell.

Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to

action. Princeton University Press.
Fainstein, S. (2010). The just city. Cornell University Press.

Britto, G.A.A. (1984), Social Action and Social WorkEducation in the Eighties,
in Social Work and Social Action (ed) H.Y. Siddiqui, Harnam Publications

Hikmat, H. (2010) . Community Empowerment Strategy. Bandung:

Humaniora Utama Press.

Filani, M. O. (2000). Community development and adult education in Nigeria: A conceptual

Framework. Journal of Adult Education in Africa, 40(2), 79-91.