Message-ID: <199606111430.KAA20370@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 10:30:12 -0400 From: "Susan.Almy." <mailto:Susan_Almy@VALLEY.NET> Subject: Re: COMMUNITIES ALWAYS RIGHT! To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
At 16:25 10/6/96 -0600, "J. WANDEMBERG".<mailto:juwandem@NMSU.EDU> wrote: >Some one wrote in a previous note that sometimes communities may not be
>initially interested in a given project and that thus some 'convincing
>and mobilization' may be needed. This is the typical, narrow-minded orthodox
>development approach which has only protected the interests of the elite
>in the 'third world' and those of the Transnationals.
>
>If a community is not interested in a project it is a very clear signal
>that they do NOT feel the need for it and thus if the need does not exist
>the interest and commitment will also be lacking leading to the usual
>outcomes of projects developed under the orthodox approach.
>
>Best regards,
>
> ************************************************************
> |JuanCarlos Wandemberg |
> |Ph.D Graduate Researcher |
Look, the only possible excuse for experts, medical doctors, agronomists, economists, etc., is that there are bodies of knowledge out there that local communities do not yet have. Granted that some of what is in them is junk, but some of it is considered quite important and useful by the people once they understand it. Enough information - and sometimes that means lengthy demonstration (like for multi-year crops) - so that they can have that basis of understanding to decide is necessary. The problem comes in on three fronts:
1) experts who refuse to believe that their pet ideas are not applicable or useful to most of the communities they want to move them in - and who regard it as "selling" rather than providing enough information to allow a decision;
2) local communities whose outer access is under the control of wealthy or tradition-bound elite groups, and whose poorer or younger members have no option but to vote with their feet (leave);
3) by whom and how is each decision made to spend a lot of development resources providing the necessary information for particular novelties, that in the end the people may or may not want to take up? If it is a simple idea and readily tested by the community, no problem (except that special interests may try to keep you from disseminating it, because it reduces the need for their product or helps people they don't like). But otherwise you get into the complications of the cost of multi-year campaigns that may or may not be worth the cost. A lot of useful development is based on changes that take quite a bit of time to show benefits and require considerable cost to start up and demonstrate (eg reforestation, vaccination).