|
Editorial, volume 5, number 2, May 1995
Integration was identified as one of the central themes of the recent World Summit on Social Development (WSSD), in response to the fact that the vast majority of people are 'integrated' into development -- and suffer the effects of crises, disasters, and political emergencies -- on terms that are deeply inequitable, and that constitute a denial of their fundamental human rights.
Over the last decade, official and non-governmental development agencies and specialists across the political spectrum have concurred in proclaiming that `empowerment' is both an end in itself and a means to achieving the kind of development that integrates humanity in ways that are socially and politically sustainable. In the terms coined by Oxfam over ten years ago -- and cited by several contributors to this issue of Development in Practice -- the goal of development is
for the poorest to have more, particularly in terms of food and health care, and to gain control of a fair share of the world's resources; and for the poor to be more, in terms of self-confidence, ability to manage their own future, and improving their status in society at large.
In this definition, empowerment is essentially the means by which individuals can exercise their right to influence the development of their societies, and to realise their own potential in their everyday lives. As Hugo Slim suggests in his Viewpoint, were this to happen, development -- from the personal to the global level -- would take a range of different courses.
Evidently, today's rhetorical consensus about the importance of empowerment masks deeply contrasting visions of how ordinary women and men should be integrated into the processes of development. The words used by aid agencies to describe the people they intend to benefit from their interventions -- `beneficiaries', `target groups', `the vulnerable', `clients', `users', `grantees', `partners', `constituency', or even `victims' -- give some insight into their various strategies for development and relief. To discern those policies and practices that marginalise people, or that seek to circumscribe their political expression, we need to be clear about what we ourselves mean by `empowerment' in the context of development.
Since disempowerment is both complex and dynamic, efforts to address its causes and effects must themselves be multi-dimensional, and based on a sensitive understanding of diversity. For instance, while they may share common problems, the daily experiences of the kind of people upon which `empowerment' programmes are typically focused -- such as single parents, or elderly people, or unemployed youths, or child workers -- will give rise to different priorities and life expectations: human beings do not form generic categories by virtue of their oppression. To be empowering, interventions in people's lives need to respect different as well as shared interests, adopt a critical stance towards prevailing power relations, and be firmly rooted in the broader context of change. Otherwise, development projects will surely fail the most disadvantaged, while aid agencies impatient to see tangible `impacts' may misinterpret the subtle processes of change, and overlook empowerment where it does occur.
In this issue, Jo Rowlands introduces the conceptual underpinnings of the idea of empowerment, and discusses how they relate to development processes, and to the activities of aid agencies within these. In particular, she argues that the various interpretations of the root concept -- power -- generate strategies that are not merely different in terms of their impact, but are in fact mutually incompatible. In calling for more rigour in their use of the term, she challenges development agencies to be far clearer than hitherto about their own analysis and practice: if they are not, they may unwittingly become part of the very problem they hope to address.
Many such agencies seek to identify disempowered social sectors, and try to improve the terms on which these are integrated into the mainstream. Naila Kabeer looks critically at such approaches in relation to women, especially through the setting up of separate `women's projects'. She argues that it is only by incorporating a well-informed analysis of gender relations in all their dimensions that any programme will promote the equitable integration of women and men in development. Empowerment, particularly of women, challenges the status quo within any given set of people. It is, therefore, vital that development efforts to encourage their empowerment move women out of what she terms `the project-trap', and into the wider policy arena where power and resources are managed.
On a smaller scale, Lewis B Dzimbiri describes how work with Mozambican refugees in Malawi was successful precisely because of an agency's willingness to tackle existing assumptions about gender roles that had effectively assigned women to purposeless activities. [Mahmuda Rahman Khan examines a Bangladeshi NGO's experiment with women entrepreneurs in the restaurant business, showing how their performance was critically determined by the involvement of men -- as husbands, brothers, staff, and business managers -- and concluding that the programme's effectiveness in `empowering' women was thus fundamentally flawed]. Mark Gorman describes the phenomenon of ageing populations, and argues that the process is one that cannot be ignored by development agencies. Challenging the common view that modernisation per se erodes the social and economic roles of older people, he shows how the exclusion experienced in old age is mapped out throughout our entire lives. He concludes that the way in which older people are incorporated into development programmes can serve as a litmus test for development agencies that are concerned to address the issues of marginalisation.
Gordon Wilson, in his analysis of NGO involvement in small-scale industries in Zimbabwe, looks at the relationships between social and economic development, and technological innovation. The practical requirements of running such industries are as critical as organisational management or skills transfer. Nevertheless, many NGOs appear to set `empowerment' against the more technical aspects of development. In doing so, they risk undermining their own declared values. In their respective Feedback items, Jorge Santiago from southern Mexico and Warren Nyamugasia from Uganda also explore the theme of integrating social and economic development. Writing from an NGO perspective, each stresses the crucial importance of establishing the ethical principles upon which to base any kind of development work. In particular, they question the extent to which the supposed shift from an ethic based on `human development' to a business ethic has -- or should be -- taken on by NGOs; and whether a market-based `enterprise culture' can ever serve as a vehicle for basic social justice. Jur Schuurman describes the achievements of a global network of some 12 million small farmers in defining alternatives to neo-liberalism, for what they are calling `rural democratisation'. Finally, Ben Rogaly reports on five current research studies of different types of contractual arrangements governing rural workers and employers in Asia. Detailed analysis of labour and credit markets suggests that such arrangements can be properly understood only in the context of economic and social structures. These include the distribution of wealth between and within households, the structure of the household, and prevailing ideologies of gender and social rank (including rank based on ethnicity, caste, and religion).
We hope that you find this issue of Development in Practice both interesting and provocative. We look forward to your reactions both to the content and to our expanded format. We always welcome correspondence from readers -- and would be especially interested to hear about current research for our new Research Round-up section, as for any of the other regular features. Do ask for detailed Guidelines for Contributors if possible, before sending in material: this helps us to plan future issues, and to offer ideas and feedback at an early stage.
Deborah Eade
 Previous
|
Next Abstract 
|
