In chapter two and three of her book, Jan Knippers Black both
lays out a definition of development and briefly lists several recent,
competing theoretical frameworks used in the creation of applied development
models. Both chapters are extremely
useful to someone new to policy theory, such as myself. However, with this writing I’d like to
quickly examine a single subchapter, ‘Empowerment and Sustainability: An
Alternate Vision.’
The essence of this subchapter is to question the mainstream
path of top-down development in favor of a bottom-up approach in the name of
local empowerment. The foundation of
the idea being that a top-down approach measures value in “monetary terms”
whereas the alternative approach “refused to see socioeconomic change as
development unless it proves to be nurturing, liberating, even energizing to
the unaffluent and unpowerful.”
I personally tend to agree with this assertion. However, I must confess that through my
proposed research I intend to examine the efficacy of a top-down approach. Not that that is now invalid, especially
within US where my study is to be set. Rather, this subchapter brings up
questions that my project would benefit to address: i) if the "unaffluent" and "unpowerful" have no voice
(native flora and fauna), can a bottom-up approach be an effective medium for
change? And ii) how can this group
become empowered and more importantly, valued appropriately?
One other point is worth noting as well. According to Black, “The only reliable
guardians of any ecological system are the people who know it, depend on it,
and do not have the option of leaving.” Again
that may appropriate in the developing world, but does that same point
translate to the US? Particularly, what
if many owners are absentee landholders who are neither local, have knowledge
of the native ecosystem nor any cultural ties to the land?
Could a bottom-up approach achieve its goals in this context?
No comments:
Post a Comment