Changing perspectives: What can 'we' do?
One of the key debates that have emerged within development studies is to whom does the responsibility lie? The structuralists among us focus on the 'state'. It is defined as the state's duty, and responsibility, to meet people's needs. Alternatively, perspectives emerge identifying the state as an enabler - the key actors are civil society. The focus on grass-roots action has, however, raised considerable debate. Critics have argued firstly, civil-society is not necessarily positive. The broad category of 'civil-society' - whether communities, NGOs, or FBOs - rely on 'social-capital, defined as the linkages amongst members of society. However, such capital assets by which people are argued to be able to rely, and draw, upon have been shown to have negative components and remain structured within a system of power inequalities. For example not all women joining a micro-finance programme are strategically empowered as the burden of time-poverty remains and not all can have their voice heard. Secondly, the social-capital resources are not indefinite but rather constrained and limited over time through a 'poverty of resources' (Gonzalez de la Rocha, 2001). Thirdly, should we be relying on social-capital to meet needs? However, traditionally, within many cultures in Africa, the community has played a major role in creating self-sufficient communities. Therefore do we need to revitalise the focus on social-capital? Read more.




Philadelphia, Pennsylvania