Speaker
Description
Development strategies based on community potentials and capabilities have been increasingly employed over the last decades by the European Commission, World Bank, UN and others to foster local development worldwide. However, they are not a novelty. Since the 1950s these approaches have proliferated across geographies, encompassing various concepts, objectives, and forms. Examples include Community-based development (CBD), Community-driven development (CDD), Community Economic Development (CED), Community-led Local Development (CLLD), Community-based Initiatives (CBI), and Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD).
These approaches emphasize community engagement and leadership in planning, decision-making, and resource allocation, aiming at improving living conditions (Mansuri and Rao, 2004; Mohan, 2014; Ahmad and Talib, 2015) and promoting socio-spatial justice. Despite extensive literature and numerous assessments (Holdcroft, 1978; Mansuri and Rao, 2013; Owen and Vercruysse, 2014; Wong and Guggenheim, 2018; European Commission, 2023), the relationship among these approaches remains underexplored, particularly regarding their origins, meanings, policy agendas, and governance arrangements.
In this article, we aim to contribute to a greater systematization of these initiatives by examining them through the soft spaces of planning and governance rescaling lens. For this purpose, we address three key questions: (i) Do these approaches shape a territorial polity responsible for their implementation? (ii) Does this polity co-create a spatial performative imaginary? (iii) Does its agency promote spatial-temporal fixes for its territory and community? To clarify community development approaches’ practices, we examine their underlying concepts, main characteristics, processes, disparities, and commonalities. Through this review an analytical matrix is introduced to better understand and assess their development over time.
Findings show community development trends reflect a transition from a people-centred to a place-based focus, a growing emphasis on co-creation processes and the production of intangible, immaterial outcomes. However, the gap between policy ideals and practical implementation remains significant. Although community development is inherently bottom-up, the persistent struggle with top-down control undermines its potential.
References
Ahmad, M. S. and Talib, N. B. A. (2015) ‘Empowering local communities: decentralization, empowerment and community driven development’, Quality & Quantity, 49(2), pp. 827–838.
European Commission (2023) Evaluation support study of the costs and benefits of the implementation of LEADER – Executive summary. Publications Office of the European Union. doi: doi/10.2762/618244.
Holdcroft, L. E. (1978) ‘The rise and fall of community development in developing countries, 1950-65: a critical analysis and an annotated bibliography.’, MSU rural development paper-Michigan State University.
Mansuri, G. and Rao, V. (2004) Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review, The World Bank Research Observer. doi: 10.1093/wbro/lkh012.
Mansuri, G. and Rao, V. (2013) ‘Can participation be induced? Some evidence from developing countries’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 16(2), pp. 284–304. doi: 10.1080/13698230.2012.757918.
Mohan, G. (2014) ‘Beyond participation : strategies for deeper empowerment’, in Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books, pp. 153–167.
Owen, D. and Vercruysse, J.-P. (2014) ‘Community Driven Development and Community-Led Local Development Comparing Experiences of the World Bank and the European Commission.’, European Structural & Investment Funds Journal, 2(4).
Wong, S. and Guggenheim, S. (2018) Community-Driven Development: Myths and Realities, Community-Driven Development: Myths and Realities. World Bank, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1596/1813-9450-8435.
| Keywords | Community Development, Governance, Politics of Space, Soft Spaces, Local Development |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
