|
MSU Rural Development Papers
MSU Rural Development
Paper No. 2
1978
The Rise and Fall
of Community Development
in Developing Countries, 1950-65:
A Critical Analysis and an
Annotated Bibliography
by
Lane E. Holdcroft
Department of Agricultural Economics
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
'241006
MSU RURAL DEVELOPMENT PAPERS
Carl K. Eicher and Carl Liedholm, Co-editors
The MSU Rural Development Paper series is designed to further the
comparative analysis of rural development in Africa, Latin America, Asia,
and the Near East. The papers will report research findings on community
development and rural development in historical perspective as well as on
contemporary rural development programs. The series will include papers
on a wide range of topics such as alternative rural development strategies;
off-farm employment and small-scale industry; marketing problems of small
farmers; agricultural extension; interrelationships between technology,
employment, and income distribution; and evaluation of rural development
projects. While the papers will convey the research findings of MSU
faculty and visiting scholars, a few papers will be published by re-
searchers and policy-makers working with MSU scholars on cooperative
research and action programs in the field.
The papers are aimed at teachers, researchers, policy-makers, donor
agencies, and rural development practitioners. Selected papers will be
translated into French, Spanish, and Arabic. Libraries, individuals,
and institutions may obtain single copies of the MSU papers free of charge
and may request their names be placed on a mailing list for periodic
notifications of published papers by writing to:
MSU Rural Development Papers
Department of Agricultural Economics
206 International Center
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
U.S.A.
THE RISE AND FALL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, 1950-65:
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY*
by
Lane E. Holdcroft**
1978
*This paper was printed under AID contract AID/ta-CA-3, Office of
Rural Development and Development Administration, with Michigan
State University.
**Lane Holdcroft is currently Assistant Director for Agricultural
Development, USAID/Philippines. This paper was prepared while Mr. Holdcroft
was a Visiting Scholar at Michigan State University in 1976/77. The paper
does not reflect the views of the Agency for International Development.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. THE RISE AND FALL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . . . . 5
2.1 Origins . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Ideology and Techniques . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Decade of Prominence . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Reasons for the Decline . . . . . . . . 19
3. IMPLICATIONS OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE FOR RURAL
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS OF THE 1970s and 1980s . . . . 26
3.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2 Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4. SELECTED LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . 33
4.1 Principles of Community Development . . . . . 33
4.2 Training . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.3 Country Studies . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.4 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.1 Community Development Bibliographies . . . . 60
5.2 General Bibliography . . . . . . . . 62
1. INTRODUCTION
Since the early 1970's there has been a re-emergence of interest in
the community development movement of the 1950's and early 1960's, pri-
marily as a result of the attention that is now being directed to the rural
poor. However, the rapid growth and demise of community development in
poor countries in the 1950's and early 1960's has not been systematically
documented. The purpose of this paper is to trace the rise and fall of
community development and to draw lessons for developing countries and
donors interested in helping the rural poor.
The community development approach of the 1950's was directed at the
promotion of better living for the whole community, with the active parti-
cipation and, if possible, the initiative of the community. However, if
this initiative was not forthcoming spontaneously, techniques for arousing
and stimulating community initiative were employed by trained community
development personnel.
Both the. United States and the United Nations described community
development as a process. The United States referred to it as a process
...in which the people of a community organize them-
selves for planning and action; define their common
and individual needs and problems; make group and
individual plans to meet their needs and solve their
problems; execute these plans with a maximum of re-
liance upon community resources; and supplement these
resources when necessary with services and materials
from governmental and non-governmental agencies out-
side the community [U.S. International Cooperation
Administration, 1956].
The United Nations viewed community development as the process
by which the efforts of the people themselves are
united with those of governmental authorities to
improve the economic, social and cultural con-
ditions of communities, to integrate these
communities into the life of the nation, and to
enable them to contribute fully to national pro-
gress." [United Nations, 1955].
Many leaders of developing nations and external donor agency
officials viewed community development as the means to mobilize rural
people to achieve economic, social, and political objectives. They
saw it as the appropriate democratic response to the threat of inter-
national communism during the Cold War era. Numerous American advocates
of community development maintained that its central purpose was to
develop stable, effective, democratic nations and, as such, community
development was carrying out the major objective of American foreign
policy.
In 1948, the term "community development" was first used officially
at the British Colonial Office's Cambridge Conference on the Development
of African Initiative. Community development was proposed to help the
British African territories prepare for independence by improving local
government and developing the territories economically. Shortly there-
after, the term and concept spread rapidly to various external donor
agencies, as well as to many national governments.
A number of modest national community development efforts were
launched, primarily in British territories in Africa about 1950. The
first major community development program was initiated in India in 1952
with support from the Ford Foundation and the United States foreign
economic assistance agency. Soon thereafter, national programs were
established in the Philippines, Indonesia, Iran, and Pakistan.
The community development movement experienced phenomenal growth
in the 1950's, primarily as a result of promotion and financial support
by the United States. By 1960 the United Nations estimated that over
sixty countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America had community develop-
ment programs in operation. About half of these were national in scope
and the remainder were regional programs of lesser importance. But, even
by 1960, some community development programs were faltering, and by 1965
most had been terminated or drastically reduced in scope to the extent
that they were no longer considered by national leaders to be major
national development efforts. By the late 1950's, donors, including
United Nations agencies and those of the United States, appeared dis-
illusioned and shifted their resources in support of new initiatives
such as the "green revolution."
During community development's decade of prominence in the 1950's,
professional journals in the social sciences also focused on this new
movement. Regretfully, however, very little was done during that era,
or since, to bring together the theory and empirical evidence into a
coherent body of knowledge. Furthermore, there is a paucity of published
materials that document the successes, as well as the failures, of
community development institutions and programs.
The failure to synthesize the literature on community development is
partially a function of the diverse nature of community development, which
was seen by its advocates as a democratic social movement embracing the
idea of the balanced, integrated development of the whole of community
life. As such, it became recognized as the legitimate concern of
specialists in agricultural production, cooperative development, rural
education, rural health, local government, social welfare, cultural
change, development economics, and rural organizations--to name only a
few. Each tended to stress the unique contribution of his discipline
to community development.
Community development was seen by its supporters as having sufficient
substance to merit recognition as a new field of development activity
requiring training in community analysis, community organization, com-
munity education, social action, and in the creation and administration
of local democratic institutions.
As one who assisted in launching the community development program
in Korea and who has been involved in rural development programs in Asia
and Africa, I have been particularly interested in the implications of
community development for rural development programs in the 1970's and
1980's. This paper examines the community development movement from a
historical perspective in an effort to enhance our understanding of that
earlier movement and to draw some lessons for contemporary rural
development strategies, policies, programs, and projects.
Part 2 of this paper analyzes the origins of the community develop-
ment movement, its ideology and methodology, as well as the reasons for
its rapid expansion and the causes for its precipitous decline. Through-
out Part 2 particular attention is given to the role of the United States
because the movement was dominated by its technicians and financial
assistance. However, this should not be interpreted as meaning that
other bilateral, multilateral, and private philanthropic external donors
5
did not subscribe to, and support, various community development
endeavors in the developing world. On the contrary, many provided
significant support for community development programs and projects.
Part 3 provides a discussion of some lessons and insights with impli-
cations for the current rural development programs.
Part 4 is a selected review of the community development litera-
ture and provides some background for Part 2. It is intended to
include the most influential and perceptive, as well as representative,
publications of that era. Part 4 is somewhat arbitrarily divided into
principles, training, country studies, and evaluation. These categories
may be misleading in that many of the publications included in the
review deal with two or more of the four topical divisions.
Part 5 provides a comprehensive bibliography of major community
development publications. Also included is a bibliography of biblio-
graphies for those desiring to pursue research in this area.
2. THE RISE AND FALL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Origins
The term "community development" was introduced in the United States
in the 1930's to denote community participation in municipal planning.
In the late 1940's, its use became world-wide to describe government pro-
grams which stimulated local initiative to undertake development activities.
The community development approach in the developing world in the 1950's
had its early roots in a) experiments by the British Colonial Service,
primarily in Asia, b) United States and European voluntary agency activities
abroad, and c) United States and British domestic programs in adult
education, community development services, and social welfare.
Both the United States and United Nations drew heavily upon the
synthesis of earlier rural reconstruction efforts in India. India had
more well-documented experience with rural reconstruction and community
development than any other single country in the world. Gandhi and
Tagore were influential personalities in spearheading rural development
activities in India and in influencing how the United States and United
Nations approached community development. Also F.L. Brayne's experi-
ments and writings in 1929 on rural development in the Punjab provided
important lessons, as did the work of agricultural missionaries at
various locations in India and elsewhere. These experiments provided
ample evidence that rural people would respond and take the initiative
when they realized that they would benefit from community efforts.
Post-Independence projects in India, including Etawah, Nilokheri, and
Faridabad, were influential prototypes for India's community develop-
ment program, which was launched in 1952, as well as other early national
community development programs in the developing world [Dayal, 1960].
The second source of related experiences grew out of American and
European voluntary agency efforts in the developing world. These included
the work of missionary groups as well as nonsectarian philanthropic
institutions such as the Near East Foundation and the Ford Foundation.
The Near East Foundation assisted in launching the Varamin Plain Project
in Iran in the late 1940's which became a prototype for the more ambitious
national community development program initiated in 1952.
The third set of experiences which influenced community development
were those from adult education, community services, and social welfare
programs in the United States and the United Kingdom, many of which were
initiated in the 1930's. In the United States, these included the community
services components of state agricultural extension services, "New Deal"
rural development efforts, as well as other university-related public
service activities which received their leadership primarily from socio-
logists, rural sociologists, and anthropologists.1 The post-World War II
activities of the Universities of Kentucky and Washington in assisting
depressed communities in their states are particularly well known.
The social welfare experience in the United States and Europe also
contributed to the ideology underlying the concept and approach of com-
munity development. Social welfare was, and is, rooted in relief and
other charitable efforts to help the poor, but such programs historically
have focused primarily on the urban poor. The United Nations definition
of social welfare has an affinity with community development concerns of
the 1950's and 1960's. The United Nations defined social welfare as
an organized activity that aims at helping towards a
mutual adjustment of individuals and their social
environment. This objective is achieved through the
use of techniques and methods which are designed to
enable individuals, groups and communities to meet
their needs and solve their problems of adjustment
to a changing pattern of society and through
1"New Deal" efforts of particular relevance here include programs of
the Rural Rehabilitation Corporation and its successor agency, the Rural
Resettlement Administration, as well as the better known Works Progress
Administration.
cooperative action to improve economic and social
conditions.2
It can be understood how this movement arising from these diverse
origins, with its theme of balanced integrated development of the whole
of community life, became the concern of a variety of subject-matter
specialists with differing values and perceptions about the nature of
development.
2.2 Ideology and Techniques
Commencing in 1945, American leaders tended to portray military
and economic assistance to the Congress and the American public as
remedies for what ailed the world. Essentially, community development
was seen by its free world advocates as the democratic response to
totalitarianism. In the Cold War era of the 1950's, American leaders
believed that the developing nations in the free world were under a
two-pronged threat from international communism: a) the potential of
external military aggression; and b) the possibility of internal revo-
lution growing out of subversion via communist agrarian movements.
3nly in the late 1950's was there a growing realization on the part of
the administration, the Congress, and the American public that economic
assistance was a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the
attainment of American foreign policy objectives. These objectives
were categorized as humanitarian, national security, and economic.3
2
United Nations, The Development of National Social Welfare Programs
(New York, 1959); quoted in Friedlander [1968] p. 4.
3
For an excellent discussion of the Cold War and its impact on
American foreign assistance, see Mason, 1955.
Military assistance was seen as necessary to counter the potential of
external military aggression, while economic assistance would build demo-
cracy and thereby prevent internal revolution. Both American and United
Nations decision-makers saw in the community development concept and
approach the democratic means to mobilize rural people as a resource for,
and the objective of, economic, social, and political development. Advo-
cates of community development maintained that its central purpose was to
develop stable, effective, democratic nations and, as such, community
development was, in fact, carrying out the long-term objective of American
foreign policy. It was expected that this multi-disciplinary approach to
comprehensive development at the grass-roots level would improve the wel-
fare and increase the productivity of village people, thereby conquering
both poverty and disaffection. Thus the stage was set for America to take
the lead in promoting community development in the developing world.
What Gunnar Myrdal wrote about South Asia was also true, although to
a lesser extent, in Latin America and Africa:
The period 1950 to 1955 witnessed the start of foreign govern-
mental financial assistance programs unprecedented in the his-
tory of international capital movement. The scene was comp-
pletely dominated by the economic assistance rendered by the
United States government whose interest in South Asia suddenly
blossomed under the influence of the Cold War. Furthermore,
the United States abandoned any idea of multilateral action
and adopted a national foreign policy whose major instrumen-
tality was bilateral economic and military aid. The growing
threat of Communist penetration in South Asia amid continuing
guerrilla warfare in several of the countries, Communist
success in China and the Korean War impelled the United States
to consider South Asia a region of prime significance. As a
result, South Asia was no longer to be bypassed. Total United
States' grants and loan commitments to the South Asian
countries for the period 1951 to 1955 exceeded two
billion, a sum not much below total United States net
capital outflows to all countries during any comparable
time span in the 1920's. Indeed, from the end of the
Second World War through fiscal year 1958 the United
States alone supplied over 80 percent of the greatly
enlarged total of grants and net credit to South Asia
[Myrdal, 1968, p. 62].
Community development was defined as a process, method, program,
institution, and/or movement which: a) involves people on a community
basis in the solution of their common problems, b) teaches and insists
upon the use of democratic processes in the joint solution of community
problems, and c) activates and/or facilitates the transfer of technology
to the people of a community for more effective solution of their common
problems. Joint efforts to solve common problems democratically and
scientifically on a community basis were seen as the essential elements
of community development.
Community development was described as rooted in the concept of the
worth of the individual as a responsible, participating member of society
and, as such, was concerned with human organization and the political
process. Its keystones were seen as community organization, community
education, and social action. It was designed to encourage self-help
efforts to raise standards of living and to create stable, self-reliant
communities with an assured sense of social and political responsibility
commensurate with basic free world objectives. Community development
was seen as dealing with a complex unit, the total community, and using
a flexible, dynamic approach adapted to local circumstances. Precise
definitions were believed to be neither realistically possible nor
desirable. Rigid definition was seen as producing rigid, ritualized, and
standardized programs which would be self-defeating.
The United States and United Nations approach to community develop-
ment focused on the initiation of comprehensive development schemes in
individual villages on the basis of what village people perceived to be
their "felt needs." Community development activities were customarily
initiated by sending a specially trained civil servant known as a "multi-
purpose village-level worker" into the village. These village-level
workers were generally secondary school graduates who had received several
months of preservice training in a community development institute. By
living in a village and working with village people, the village-level
worker was supposed to gain the villagers' confidence. He was to serve
as a catalyst, one who would guide and assist villagers in identifying
their felt needs, then translating these felt needs into village develop-
ment plans, and finally implementing these plans--always working through
the active village leaders.
The village-level worker was supposed to have some skills in a variety
of subjects such as village organization and mobilization, as well as in
such areas as literacy, agriculture, and health. And in areas in which
he lacked special skills, technicians from specialized government agencies
were supposed to support him. Usually the village-level worker administered
"matching" grants to villagers in which the villagers' labor and some
locally available materials would be combined with grants-in-kind from the
national community development organization in order to carry out village
projects. However, the products of successful community development were
seen as not only the building of such community facilities as wells, roads
and schools, and the creation of new crops, but also the development of
stable, self-reliant communities with an assured sense of social and
political responsibility.
Community development proponents likened it to an enterprise by which
the government and the rural people would be brought together, thus improv-
ing the lot of the more downtrodden and less fortunate peoples, Consis-
tent with this view of community development, however, was a broader one
which saw community development as an important technique for modernizing
an entire society. Where national community development efforts were
being implemented, usually a large new bureaucracy was established at the
national, regional, and local levels to administer the program and attempt
to coordinate the rural programs of technical ministries and regional
offices, e.g., agriculture, education, and health. Most often, these new
community development organizations were well financed, primarily by
external donors, and staffed with expatriate advisors. With their large
foreign and domestic training programs, they were usually able to recruit
highly motivated, relatively well-educated young men and women for both
headquarters and field staff positions.
Some twenty-eight delegates to the 1960 SEATO-sponsored international
Conference on Community Development suggested the following "pre-conditions
and apparatus necessary for a successful program." These provide an
excellent summary of the thinking of community development practitioners
at the time:
A. There are certain objectives common to most free nations
towards which a Community Development programme is of
particular value, but each country has its own needs
resulting from its own individual characteristics. The
chief aim of a successful Community Development programme
is not wells, roads, schools and new crops. It is
stable self-reliant communities with an assured sense of
social and political responsibility.
B. A programme should encourage the people to organize them-
selves and to exercise initiative in improving their
communities and ways of living through co-operative efforts
on a self-help basis.
C. The administrative organization should have a structure
which assures the highest status for the programme and in
its support secures the maximum effective co-ordination
of the activities of technical agencies.
D. The Community Development programme should foster the growth
of local government and develop local leadership.
E. Continuing research and evaluation are essential to the
success of Community Development, not only in relation to
the initiative of programmes, but also in relation to
follow-through action.
F. The Community Development programme should enjoy strong and
continuing support from the head of government and receive
the highest priority in the development of the national
economy.
G. Planning and policy making for Community Development should
be carried out at a ministerial or a higher level by an
agency specifically created for the purpose, rather than in
a functional department such as agriculture, education or
health.
H. Co-ordination of technical services is of vital importance at
all levels of administration and these services should be
rendered on the basis of actual village needs.
I. The village council, which is composed entirely of represen-
tatives of the village, should be the basic unit for
Community Development and arrangements should be made to
enable it to raise funds for the projects it decides to
undertake. In order that village people can develop
initiative and self-confidence, the village councils,
in their determination of priorities and in the allo-
cation of their resources, should have as wide powers
as possible.
J. Community Development requires substantial and continu-
ing financial support from governments. As most villages
do not have enough money for the full financing of
important projects, grants-in-aid will be necessary.
Such assistance ought to stimulate even small communities
into undertaking their own projects. It will be concrete
evidence of a government's concern for the people living
in the small communities and it will build up faith and
confidence in the nation as a whole. There should be
ready availability of such additional funds as may be
necessary for particular projects if local initiative is
not to be discouraged or frustrated. This means that,
hand in hand with the decentralization of responsibility
for planning, should go the provision of adequate pro-
cedures whereby communities are afforded reasonable local
authority in the raising and expenditure of development
funds [SEATO, 1960].
Thus, it can be seen that community development was appealing to the
leaders of some free world and developing nations who were looking for an
ideology and technique to improve the living conditions of rural people.
Community development not only held forth the promise of building "grass
roots" democratic institutions, but also improvements in the material well-
being of rural people--without revolutionary changes in the existing
political and economic order. In summary, the community development
approach was assumed to have nearly universal application to rural
societies. The United States and other donors agreed to finance most of
the costs associated with launching national and pilot community develop-
ment schemes.
2.3 Decade of Prominence
The community development movement blossomed in the developing world
during the decade of the 1950's. By 1960 over sixty nations in Asia,
Africa, and Latin America had launched national or regional community
development programs. In some instances small pilot projects which had
been launched by the British or French governments in African and Asian
nations in the early post-World War II period were expanded rapidly with
United States and/or United Nations assistance.
The greatly publicized launching of India's ambitious community
development program in 1952 gave the movement an added impetus. Until
about 1956 the Indian program served as a prototype for national programs
in other Asian countries. Leaders in the Indian program served as con-
sultants and provided training materials for these new programs, and
numerous government officials from around the world visited India to
observe and/or attend training courses.
A few United States foreign aid missions established community de-
velopment offices in the early 1950's, and in 1954 a Community Development
Division was established in the foreign aid agency's Washington head-
quarters under the leadership of Louis Miniclier. This Community Develop-
ment Division, through its personnel and consultants, was instrumental
in promoting community development around the world. A relatively small
number of individuals spearheaded the United States foreign aid support.
The proponents included sociologists and anthropologists with a smaller
number of educators, economists, agriculturalists, political scientists,
and social welfare specialists. Some of the more prominent advocates of
community development included Carl Taylor, Douglas Ensminger, Melvin
Tumin, George Foster, and Richard Poston. Others who provided intellectual
and, in some instances, operational program leadership included Margaret Read
and Thomas Batten of London University, Paul Taylor, Lyle Hayden, Lucian Pye,
John Badeau, Ernest Witte, and Louis Miniclier. Members in this group
provided leadership in the American bilateral effort, as well as the
various United Nations agencies and private foundations.4
Many of the individuals mentioned above served on three major American
foreign aid teams in 1955 that visited and reported in glowing terms on
the recently launched community development programs in Bolivia, Egypt, Iran,
Jamaica, Peru, Puerto Rico, Gold Cost, India, Pakistan, and the Philippines.
Success or effectiveness was reported in terms of numbers of village
workers trained and numbers of village projects (e.g., wells, latrines or
roads) constructed as well as acceptance of community development
by the government and the villagers. These favorable reports encouraged
the initiation of community development programs elsewhere.
The modus operandi of the American foreign aid agency in spreading the
community development approach consisted basically of a) sending teams of
community development experts to assist interested governments in planning
national and pilot community development programs, b) providing long-
term technical and capital assistance, c) publishing a community develop-
ment periodical as well as numerous other community development documents,
and d) holding a series of six international conferences around the world
in which interested governments were invited to participate.
4See Part 4 and the Bibliography of this paper for a discussion and
listing of publications by most of these individuals.
In the early 1950's the American foreign aid agency reproduced and
published materials from newly initiated community development programs.
A widely disseminated periodical, The Community Development Review, was
initiated in 1956 and continued publication until 1963. This periodical
and numerous other original and reprinted community development documents
and reports contributed to the spread of the ideology and techniques being
advocated by the United States and the United Nations.
The six American-sponsored international conferences in Iran (1955
and 1956), the United States (1957), Libya (1958), Ceylon (1959), and
Korea (1961) provided a forum for an exchange of experiences among
participants already implementing community development programs and an
opportunity to proselytize representatives of governments considering
the initiation of community development programs.
In countries where governments indicated an interest in initiating
community development programs, the usual pattern was that of small teams
of community development "experts" who would assist the host government
in formulating a preliminary program proposal. Usually, this would be
followed by the establishment of a host government community development
agency and a Community Development Division in the United States country
aid mission (USOM). Then, observation trips were arranged for senior
host government personnel to attend the international conferences and
observe programs already launched. The next step would be to train
prospective community development officers in the host country or another
developing country with an active community development program. Generally,
the United States would provide technical advisors, supplies, and
equipment; training for host country personnel; and most of the budgetary
support needed for program implementation. In some instances, rather
than providing direct United States government assistance, the United
States foreign aid agency would finance assistance programs operated by
American universities or voluntary agencies.
After the national program in India was initiated in 1952 with
massive support from the Ford Foundation and the United States foreign
assistance agency, the United States assisted in launching major programs
in Iran and Pakistan in 1953, the Philippines in 1955, Jordan in 1956,
Indonesia in 1957, and Korea in 1958. Smaller programs were also launched
with United States assistance in Iraq in 1952, Afghanistan and Egypt
in 1953, Lebanon in 1954, and Ceylon and Nepal in 1956. The American
foreign assistance program at its zenith in 1959 assisted twenty-five
nations in the implementation of community development programs and the
United States foreign aid agency employed 105 direct hire and contract
community development advisors. During the ten-year period ending in
1962, the United States provided directly some $50 million dollars in
support of community development programs in over thirty countries via
its bilateral foreign economic assistance agency, and a somewhat lesser
amount via the several United Nations agencies that funded community
development efforts in another thirty countries.
Under the leadership of the United Nations Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, the United Nations agencies generally fostered the
community development movement in much the same manner as did the United
States foreign aid agency, albeit on a reduced scale. Technical and
capital assistance were provided in launching pilot programs and inter-
national conferences were sponsored, in addition to the preparation of
numerous widely disseminated community development publications.
2.4 Reasons for the Decline
By 1960 some community development programs, including the major
Indian effort, were faltering and by 1965 most national community develop-
ment programs had been terminated or drastically reduced. The pre-
cipitous decline was due primarily to a) disillusionment on the part
of many political leaders in developing countries with the performance of
their programs vis-a-vis stated goals, and b) the sharp reduction in
support from the United States and other donors. These interdependent
causes were mutually reinforcing and, thus, explain the precipitous
decline of most major community development programs. Political leaders
in developing countries were disillusioned because their community develop-
ment programs had not demonstrated, as promised, that the community develop-
ment approach would build stable "grass roots" democratic institutions and
would improve the economic and social well-being of rural people while
contributing to the attainment of national economic goals.
During the era of the 1950's and 1960's when the "trickle down" theory
of economic development was in vogue, community development programs were
not intended to, nor did they, affect the basic structural barriers to
equity and growth in rural communities. Rather, they accepted the exist-
ing local power structure as a given. Usually community development
village-level workers aligned themselves with the traditional village
elites, thus strengthening the economic and social position of the
elites. There was little attention given to assuring that benefits
from community development programs accrued to the rural poor. Realizing
this, the poor majority of the villagers did not respond to the
community development approach. Only in those few nations, e.g.,
South Korea, with rural communities composed of relatively homogeneous
farm owner-operators were community development programs relatively
successful in reaching their stated objectives. In some instances,
efforts were made in the early 1960's to recognize that most rural
communities were divided by the different interests of the landless
and nearly landless laborers, subsistence tenants and owner-operators,
and commercial farmers, thus calling for changes in the local power
structure if community development were to succeed. However, most
political leaders of developing countries turned to programs to
increase food production.
Although the Foreign Assistance Act of 19625 indicated continuing
strong American congressional support for "greater emphasis on community
development in the less developed nations," this congressional mandate
was not implemented by the Kennedy Administration. The following is an
excerpt from the 1962 Report of the United States House Committee on
Foreign Affairs:
5
Amending Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as reported in U.S.
Congress.[U.S. Congress, 1962].
Section 109 amends section 461 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 which relates to assistance to countries having agrarian
economies. The amendment directs that, in such countries,
emphasis shall be placed, among other programs, on community
development to promote stable and responsible governmental
institutions at the local level.
During the past 10 years, through its foreign assistance programs,
the United States has spent approximately $50 million in support
of community development programs in 30 countries. Almost one-
half of this amount was allocated to help launch major programs
in India, Pakistan, and the Philippines. Prior to 1955, the
United States assistance for community development emphasized
equipment and supplies, such as vehicles for village workers.
Since 1955, the emphasis has shifted to providing technicians and
participant training in addition to small amounts of supplies and
equipment.
Basically, community development approaches the local community as
a whole and is directed toward helping the people on the village
level to participate effectively and with knowledge in shaping
the future of their own community and of their nation.
The product of successful community development is not only wells,
roads, schools, other community facilities, and new crops; it is,
more properly, the development of stable, self-reliant communities
with an assured sense of social and political responsibility.
The committee believes that community development can be a dynamic
force leading to economic improvement, social advancement, and
orderly political growth. The amendment proposed in this section
has been approved by the committee in order to encourage greater
emphasis on community development in the less-developed nations
[U.S. Congress, 1962].
In spite of successful efforts on the part of its American advocates to
maintain congressional support, after 1959 United States aid rapidly
declined for community development. The number of developing nations
receiving major United States support for community development dropped
from twenty-five to nineteen between 1959 and 1960 and the number of
American community development advisors was reduced from 105 to 68. By
1963 the United States foreign aid agency's Community Development Division
in Washington, D.C. had been abolished along with most community develop-
ment offices in field missions. Only a few countries continued to
receive United States support for their community development programs
by the mid-1960's. When major United States assistance was reduced or
terminated, community development programs were terminated, drastically
redirected, or greatly reduced by host country governments.
Under the Kennedy Administration, the leadership of the United
States foreign aid agency in the early 1960's was concerned not only with
the lack of host country support of community development programs, but
was also disillusioned with the widespread internal conflict and animosity
between United States community development and technical services pers-
sonnel, particularly agriculturalists. This conflict permeated the
foreign aid agency both in Washington and field missions, and it spread
to host country ministries and agencies. It was an ideological battle
which pitted the generalist against the specialist, the social scientist
(excluding economists) against the technologist, the pluralist against
the monist. Usually these conflicts were resolved in favor of technical
services personnel who were bureaucratically more established and less
abstract in their perception of the development process.
By 1963, where community development offices had not been eliminated,
community development and agricultural offices in United States field
missions were combined into rural development offices in line with the
recommendations of Stanley Andrews [Andrews, 1961].6 And where not
eliminated, most host country community development ministries or agencies
6
See Part 4, page 46, for a review of Andrews' report. In most cases
a rural development office was formed after the demise of the host country's
community development program and the new office focused primarily on agri-
cultural development.
became units of the agriculture or internal affairs ministry depending on
whether the current development focus was on local government or agri-
cultural technology.
The United Nations and a few private philanthropic organizations
continued to fund some community development activities throughout the
1960's, but without American and host country government support these
efforts were relatively minor and increasingly shifted from a develop-
ment to social welfare orientation. Even British government support for
the University of London's community development training and publication
activities was terminated in 1964.7
Perhaps the most universal criticism of the community development
movement was that its programs were inefficient in reaching economic
goals. It was assumed that man would respond rationally to economic
incentives and, since underdevelopment was defined in economic terms,
programs that more directly focused on economic growth were considered
more deserving of support. As central planning agency personnel in
particular became established and influential in decision-making in
developing countries during the 1950's, they criticized community
development programs as being "uneconomic" and a "low priority invest-
ment" of scarce domestic and external development resources. Related
to this issue was the concern in many nations that community develop-
ment programs were not contributing to the alleviation of food shortages
and poverty.
7The widely read periodical, Community Development Bulletin, was
published quarterly from December 1949 to December 1964 in English and
French.
The community development program in India was the best-documented
case.8 The stated objective of the Indian program was to transform the
economic and social life of the villages and to alleviate poverty and the
scarcity of food through popular participation of village people. A
massive self-help program embracing agriculture, health, education,
public works, and social welfare was implemented for over a decade. Yet,
program performance, measured in terms of reaching its stated objectives,
was poor. Poverty and food scarcity were not reduced, but rather became
more widespread during that decade, as did disparities of wealth between
the large farmers and peasants in the rural areas. Critics pointed to
the wide disparity, in the distribution of benefits of the program,
between accessible and remote villages, between cultivators and other
groups within villages, and between the wealthier and the poorer farmers
among cultivators. Evaluators reported that the program was not accepted
by people, did not reach the poor, and was a "top-down" bureaucratic
empire which ignored agricultural production.
The leaders of the Indian community development program recognized
early that the program was ineffective in stimulating village-level
initiative and action. There was a propensity on the part of village-
level workers to work with the traditional village elite, to ignore the
poor, and to lead or direct villagers rather than develop local leadership.
This basic problem of being unable to arouse popular participation plagued
most community development programs.
8
Parts 4.3 and 4.4 of this paper, Country Studies and Evaluation,
includes a review of the major publications which describe the Indian
program content and discuss its decline.
Defenders of community development in India and elsewhere maintained
that success depended on more and better training for village-level
workers and improved coordination of local government services. The
view most often expressed was that political leaders did not understand
either the complexity of the problem or the time required to transform
traditional village societies.
India also provides an example of how national community development
programs evolved during the 1950's. During the initial years social wel-
fare, public works, and changes in villagers' attitudes, rather than
material results, were emphasized. Then, food production became the
prime focus of the program in the late fifties. In the early 1960's
the focus shifted to local self-government and cooperative development as
the community development effort receded and technical agriculture came
to the fore again. The evolution of the Indian program from social wel-
fare and public works to cooperatives, local government, and technical
agriculture was the general pattern in community development programs
around the world.
While the forces suggested above were also in motion, in several
countries, including the Phillipines and Korea, national community
development programs were closely identified with a political leader
or political party. With the emergence of new political leadership,
the community development programs were made subordinate to technical
agricultural and cooperative development agencies. In such instances,
the detractors of community development, particularly senior officials
in the traditional technical ministries, were able to unite with
economists in the central planning agencies to achieve their ends.
3. IMPLICATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE
FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS OF THE 1970's and 1980's
3.1 Summary
The world-wide community development (CD) movement faded away
over ten years ago amid the euphoria of the "green revolution." There
are numerous insights and lessons which can be drawn from the com-
munity development experience. Community development had great appeal
to leaders of developing nations and external donor officials because
it provided a nonrevolutionary approach to the development of agrarian
societies. It is now apparent that these decision-makers were rather
naive.
The failure of CD and the shortcomings of the "green revolution"
have once again shifted the focus to a more comprehensive or integrated
rural development (IRD). Some CD veterans believe that the new IRD is
in fact a revival of old CD. Although the sponsors of IRD themselves
would rather emphasize the differences, there are sufficient similarities
to uphold the revivalist view. A question then may well be asked:
Are there any major implications of the rise and fall of the CD move-
ment for the new IRD?
While broad generalizations are often unwarranted, it may be
useful, with the advantage of hindsight, to understand fully the
shortcomings of CD. As a starting point we should remember that CD
was a product of the Cold War era, and its political and economic
objectives were connected with it. Its principles were derived, con-
sciously or unconsciously, from theories directly opposed to revolu-
tionary doctrines. In that period, the threat of subversion was taken
very seriously. CD was designed to remove this threat. By bringing
people together, inviting them into harmonious communities, and
mobilizing them for common endeavors, CD promised to generate permanent
political peace and quick economic growth. After a decade of experi-
ence, it became evident that neither promise could be fulfilled, expect
in rare and isolated cases.
Politically, CD was ineffective because, in most developing
countries, basic conflicts were too deep to be resolved simply by the
persuasive efforts of CD workers. Factors such as distribution of
land ownership, exploitation by elites, or urban domination could
neither be ignored nor bypassed. CD's attempt to proceed smoothly
without friction towards general consensus was unrealistic. The ex-
pected reconciliation and common participation for the sake of develop-
ment occurred as an exception rather than as a rule.
Economically, CD displayed a double weakness. First, it enlarged
social services more rapidly than the production of rural incomes.
Secondly, it could not significantly improve the condition of the
distressed poor, the sharecroppers and laborers. Both aspects of
rural poverty, low production and unjust distribution, were not sig-
nificantly changed by CD.
Recoiling from the elitist bias of CD (and the "green revolution"),
the new IRD programs are concentrating on the rural poor. In other
words, IRD programs acknowledge the presence of conflict of interest,
namely, class struggle, a point of view that was studiously avoided by
CD. Beyond the IRD acknowledgement however, there remains the challenge
of finding ways and means to uplift the underprivileged. Perhaps for
identical reasons, the new IRD, like the old CD, does not relish the
prospect of highlighting politically sensitive obstacles, and so diplo-
matically shrouds the suggestions for removing them. Similarly, even
though CD's fondness for social services and neglect of production are
now well known, the new development programs of the late 1970's such as
"basic needs" may fall into the same trap. To strike a balance between
demands for social services and conditions for increased production is,
in any case, a very difficult task.
3.2 Lessons
A. Pitfalls of New Ministries of Rural Development. In the field of
administration, CD was hampered by the confrontation between the generalist
and the specialist. In country after country, attempts were made to bring
different departments working in the rural area under unified control.
The department of agriculture, usually the most rapidly expanding entity,
tenaciously resisted any kind of merger. CD in India enjoyed a brief
period of supremacy as the czar of rural development, and then succumbed
to the department of agriculture. The new IRD programs which demand unified
control must be prepared for this battle of departments. Perhaps the
necessary coordination can be secured more peacefully, not by imposing a
superdepartment from above, but by creating autonomous institutions at
lower levels nearer to the village.
The experience of numerous community development programs suggests
that the problem of coordination among various government agencies
cannot be resolved by establishing a single new ministry or agency,
even with the strong support of the Chief of State. Difficulties arise
from rivalries between the technical ministries, i.e., agriculture,
health, and education (especially extension departments in these min-
istries) and the rural development agency or ministry. To be effective,
integrated rural development, like community development, inevitably
must affect and make demands on the technical ministries. National
"community" development organizations in developing countries were
unable to provide the mechanism for coordinating rural development
efforts and there is no evidence that a national "rural" development
organization could do any better today. Local-level coordination was
successful when all local technical extension personnel and CD workers
were supervised by the district administrator rather than by repre-
sentatives of their technical ministries or the national community
development agency.
B. Planning. Rural development projects should include from their
inception.an income-producing component, usually one which entails
increasing agricultural output through the introduction of a profitable
"package" of technology. With an income-producing "center piece,"
other components, such as health, sanitation, and education, can
follow. Many observers were properly critical of the Indian CD program
for initially investing in community buildings, schools, clinics, and
in social welfare which increased consumption and population growth,
rather than stressing agricultural production from the onset of the CD
program. In countries where community development programs included
an agricultural or other income-producing component, these programs
often became internationally known. When there was a failure in agri-
cultural production, the causes were usually the technology employed
and/or the share-cropping arrangements.
C. Participation. Participation, a major goal in the CD strategy,
proved to be a most difficult and elusive goal to attain. Participation
by nearly all segments of rural society, including the landless and
nearly landless, was rarely accomplished in any of the community develop-
ment programs. In most instances village community development workers
tended to identify with the traditional village elite to whom most of
the program benefits accrued. Unfortunately, there has been very little
analysis of the impact of the political and social milieu on villagers'
incentives to participate in CD projects. The CD experience indicates
that, if the rural poor are to be helped, the structural barriers to
greater equity must be addressed.
While most CD programs espoused participatory democracy, self-
reliance, and local initiative, in practice the village community
development worker was paternalistic and directed local-level programs.
The reason usually given for the villagers' lack of participation was
the inherent fatalism of rural people and their general apathy toward
improving their own standards of living. Yet, the experience of those
relatively successful pilot community development programs suggests
that villagers will participate when they perceive that the benefits of
the program will accrue to them.
D. Implementation. Regardless of the apparent differences in the
rhetoric, most of the new IRD programs are based on the political and
economic theories which sustained CD. The affinity is even more pro-
nounced in the implementation of IRD programs.
1. CD relied mainly on the village-level worker. He was the
"catalyst" who precipitated the formation of communities.
He was the agent of change, the chief modernizing influence.
Although he was asked to help establish local leaders, com-
mittees, and councils, his role, in fact, reinforced the
paternalistic and centralist tradition. Ultimately, CD
could not foster the growth of self-reliant local insti-
tutions. IRD relies mainly on government change agents who
fulfill similar functions.
2. The CD concept of "self-help" projects, boosted by matching
grants brought by the village-level worker, seemed very
attractive. But, it proved a poor substitute for long-
term institutional growth and mobilization. The "aided
self-help" projects implemented by the village-level worker
unintentionally inhibited real planning and participation.
IRD also uses "aided self-help" projects implemented by the
government change agent.
3. The CD worker, generally a secondary school graduate himself,
was biased in favor of the rural elite and their values.
Furthermore, he was directed to work with the established
leaders. He felt more at home with the large farmers or
youth club members than with the landless laborers. He
gladly strengthened the existing power structure. He did
not see himself as the champion of the weak against the
strong. The IRD change agent cannot ignore the elitist
leadership.
E. Expansion of Pilot Programs. Political leaders and administrators
of rural development programs must exercise restraint in expanding
successful pilot programs. In many nations, including India, the CD
program was expanded very rapidly as a result of efforts by politicians
to spread the program to their constituencies as soon as possible.
This rapid expansion necessitated the recruitment of large numbers of
poorly trained personnel. Village-level workers were assigned too many
responsibilities in too many villages and the damage which resulted
was often worse than if no work had been attempted. Pilot programs are
usually successful when adequate resources are provided for material and
human inputs. Often, plans for the expansion of these programs do not
take into account the additional resources and time required to repli-
cate the carefully nurtured pilot schemes.
F. Drawing on History. Since many of the new IRD programs employ the
same organizational methods as CD (i.e., government change agents,
aided self-help projects, and collaboration with elitist leaders), the
results achieved by IRD will probably mirror the CD experience in many
countries. The initial popularity of CD and its quick decline provides
an object lesson, but it is a lesson which is rarely studied by the IRD
experts of the 1970's. Architects of new IRD programs should draw on
the earlier CD experiences. Since CD programs were carried out in over
50 countries in the 1950's and 1960's, these experiences should be
assessed on a country by country basis and the lessons learned should
be incorporated into the planning and implementation of IRD programs
today.
4. SELECTED LITERATURE REVIEW
4.1 Principles of Community Development
Batten, Thomas R. 1957. Communities and Their Development. London:
Oxford University Press.
This book was influential in the community development movement as a
basic text for national leaders, village workers, and external donor
agency advisors of community development programs in numerous nations.
The book compares different objectives, approaches, and organizations in
community development using a variety of examples and drawing conclusions
that provides guidance to those involved in launching new community develop-
ment programs.
It discusses the variety of definitions and patterns of community
development and considers their appropriateness according to the different
needs of different communities. Community development is seen as a new
emphasis based on principles derived from past experience. The rationale
for community development is to foster development in local communities.
The main problem is to find effective ways of stimulating, helping, and
teaching people to adopt new methods and to learn new skills, and helping
people to adapt their way of life to the changes they have accepted or
have had imposed upon them. And, as change occurs it is important to
ensure that the feeling or spirit of community is not destroyed.
The author concludes that community development is the response of
the larger national society to the failure of past development to make
ordinary people feel more satisfied with life in their own small com-
munity, or even as satisfied as they were before. Community development
agencies are seen as trying to reduce some of the tensions or equipping
rural people to resolve new tensions that change may bring. The community
development agency tries to achieve these objectives by
a) Stimulating people to decide what it is they want and
then helping them get it through collective effort,
b) Introducing people to new kinds of satisfactions and
ways of realizing them and equipping people to
make wise choices between alternative satisfactions,
c) Maintaining existing groups or developing new ones to
ensure that each individual has opportunities to develop
his personality and to achieve status and significance
in his relationships with other people.
DiFranco, Joseph. 1958. Differences Between Extension Education and
Community Development. Comparative Extension Pub. No. 5. Ithaca:
New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University (October).
By 1958, two distinct and widespread approaches to rural development
had emerged, namely community development and extension education. Pro-
ponents of each approach were critical of one another and the purpose
of this publication was to analyze and compare extension education and
community development. It discusses the similarities and dissimilarities
between both approaches with regard to objectives, process, organization,
and principles, and then draws some conclusions. -Supporters of each
approach welcomed this paper as an objective attempt to overcome the
growing conflict between extension education and community development.
The publication concludes that there were more similarities than
dissimilarities and that differences arose from different philosophies,
objectives, and organization that were, often, only a matter of emphasis,
e.g., extension education placed more emphasis on individual action
and community development on group action; extension education concen-
trated more on agricultural production and community development on all
aspects of human welfare.
Finally, it suggests that community development might be most appro-
priate in the first stage of a rural society's development and extension
education best suited for the second stage. It states that both approaches
have merit and should be promoted as "tools" to be adapted to different
situations, avoiding clashes of personalities and programs.
Mosher, A.T. 1958. Varieties of Extension Education and Community
Development. Ithaca: Rural Development Department, New York State
College of Agriculture at Cornell University.
This publication examines varieties of extension education and com-
munity development processes comprehensively and from the perspective of
a scholar identified with agricultural extension education. At the time of
its publication, there were growing animosities between proponents of
agricultural extension and proponents of community development as approaches
to rural development, and this publication was widely disseminated in both
camps.
Mosher observes that all varieties of extension education and com-
munity development are directed at furthering rural development and that
rural development requirements are many and diverse. Thus, no one pro-
cess is a panacea; each can make a substantial and important contribution.
However, there are many difficulties in deciding which of the processes
can be successfully combined with each other or with other governmental
activities essential to rural development.
The most important task of any rural development effort is identified
as helping rural people develop confidence. And to do this, extension
agents and community development workers must have a great concern for
rural people.
Taylor, Paul S. 1958. "Community Development." Technical Lecture No. 10,
UNC/OEC, Seoul, Korea.
The author of this paper served as a short-term consultant to several
national community development programs including Korea, where this paper
was presented, just prior to the launching of the Korea national program.
The paper was widely quoted in Korea and it provided community development
advocates with the rationale for launching national programs in the Cold
War era.
Tumin, Melvin M. 1958. "Some Social Requirements for Effective Community
Development." Community Development Review No. 11 (December):1-39.
This paper was widely cited and reprinted in several community develop-
ment publications and was discussed by scholars and practitioners in
the late 1950's. The author identifies themes and pervasive problem areas,
and develops fifteen elements that he considers to be the sum total of
the community development process. Believing that the "science" of com-
munity development was too immature to allow systematic formulation of
propositions, Tumin argues that the fifteen elements could be used to
predict trends and likelihood in community development efforts.
A significant focus of attention in the paper is on the competing
demands and claims of two major and usually not compatible objectives of
community development. The first of these emphasized the need for im-
provement of the material conditions of life. Success was measured in
terms of certain technological gains or by some indices of economic
growth, with only secondary interest in community participation. The
second emphasized the need for development of concern for problem-solving
and of a spirit of self-reliance in communities which typically depended
on others for the solution of their problems, or which had simply learned
to live with their problems. The interest in this paper was in part due
to the fact that while community development scholars and practitioners
usually agreed in principle that both goals should receive equal priority,
in fact sharp strains and incompatibilities in programs arose continuously
out of the conflict between different priorities given to these two
purposes.
United Nations. Economic and Social Council. 1955. Principles of
Community Development--Social Progress Through Local Action.
This publication was very influential in the era of new national
community development programs in the 1950's. It deals with the policy
of promoting healthy and balanced growth through local action in the
rural areas of developing countries. Community development is
tentatively defined as "a process designed to create conditions of
economic and social progress for the whole community's initiative."
Used in a generic sense, community development is said to include:
a) physical improvements such as roads, housing, irrigation, drainage,
and better farming practices, b) functional activities such as health,
education, and recreation, and c) community action involving group dis-
cussion, community analyses of local needs, setting up committees, seek-
ing needed technical assistance, and the selecting and training of pers-
sonnel. Community development, it is said,
implies the integration of two sets of forces making
for human welfare, a) the opportunity and capacity for
cooperation, self-help, ability to assimilate and adapt
new ways of living that is at least latent in every
group, and b) the fund of techniques and tools in every
social and economic field, drawn from world-wide experi-
ence and now in use or available to national governments
and offices.
The report stresses the existence of community resources, e.g.,
labor, building materials, land, savings, and local leadership, which
combined with government resources, encouragement, guidance, and techni-
cal direction, will result in local progress. In spite of a variety of
approaches and programs among countries, the report points out a growing
convergence upon goals of higher productivity of primary products and
goods by improved methods, and effective social organization to bring the
surplus labor of men and women to bear on their own social improvement.
It emphasizes that village problems cannot be successfully attacked in
isolation because a village is a highly integrated unit, and that a
sound approach involves all of the community's various aspects, i.e.,
the physical, social, and economic aspects of development must be taken
into consideration simultaneously.
The basic elements of community development programs are identified
as including:
a) Activities that correspond to basic needs of the community and
initial projects that respond to the expressed needs of the people,
b) Multipurpose village programs,
c) Increasing village participation in community affairs and
strengthening existing forms of local governments,
d) Training local leadership,
e) Greater reliance on women and youth in development,
f) The belief that changed attitudes are more important than
material achievement.
This report also discusses the various types of local institutions
and local projects for community development, examples of various national
community development programs, essential elements in building national
programs, and community development techniques, e.g., village surveys
and communications techniques, and training community development workers
and local leaders.
4.2 Training
Batten, Thomas R. 1962. Training for Community Development: A Critical
Study of Method. London: Oxford University Press.
This book was published in 1962 when the community development move-
ment had begun to decline, yet it was influential in modifying the type
of training provided for community development in several countries. The
author discusses the training programs then current, recommends changes,
and describes techniques and methods that evolved over the years from
the community development training course at the University of London's
Institute of Education.
United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 1957.
Study Kit on Training for Community Development. New York.
This publication was used by national program staffs in preparing
training programs for new village-level workers for community develop-
ment programs.
4.3 Country Studies
Abveva, Jose V. 1959. Focus on the Barrio: The Story Behind the Birth
of the Philippine Community Development Program Under President
Ramon Magsaysay. Manila: Institute of Public Administration,
University of the Philippines.
This excellent book provides an understanding of the background and
growth of the community development movement in the Philippines.
Conditions identified which gave rise to the community development
movement include:
a) Diffusion of democratic values in a changing society
b) Agrarian and political unrest
c) Socio-economic studies
d) Experiments in changing rural villages
e) External ideas of rural reconstruction and community
development
f) The campaign and victory of Magsaysay.
President Magsaysay saw improving the welfare of barrio people as
in the public interest and he dominated the Congress in making policy
for the community development program until his untimely death.
Dayal, Rajeshwar. 1960, 1966. Community Development Program in India.
Allahabad: Kitab Mahal.
This book provides in the first edition a very comprehensive treat-
ment of the community development movement in India from 1952 until 1960
and in the second edition until 1966. It provides in considerable detail
the concept, major features, administration, progress, and targets of the
community development program in part one. Part two deals with all wel-
fare and development components of the program, including agriculture,
cooperative development, village industries, communications, education,
health and sanitation, training, housing, and social welfare. Part three
discusses the programs in the tribal and Gramdan areas and urban com-
munity development, while part four deals with evaluations and appraisals
of the community development program. Part four makes reference to the
findings of major evaluations, e.g., the wide disparity in the distri-
bution of benefits between accessible and remote villages, between culti-
vators and other groups within villages and, among the cultivators,
between wealthier and poorer farmers. Also reported are the lack of
progress in changing villagers' attitudes as reflected in villagers'
participation in community activities and organization, the unwillingness
of the community development worker to divest himself of power, and the
top-down administration of the program. The Seventh Report of the
Program Evaluation Organization indicated that the entire general level
of achievement of the community development program was still low and far
from adequate.
Dayal concludes that the community development program failed to
reach its most important central objective of engendering in rural people
a spirit of self-reliance and collective action to bring about compre-
hensive development and changes in village life and work. The failure
is attributed primarily to the lack of competent personnel to implement
the program.
Dey, S.K. 1962. Community Development--A Chronicle 1954-1961. Delhi:
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India.
This revealing book is composed of extracts of monthly community
development letters by the leader of the community development program
in India; it is very helpful in understanding the progress and problems
of India's community development program. It provides the reader with a
glimpse of the thinking underlying the changes in policies and program
emphasis as community development evolved in India. The changes in
priorities were generally from social welfare and public works in the
initial years of the national program to food production in the late
1950's. Increasingly, the focus turned to the Panchayati Raj (local
self-government) and cooperative development as the program declined.
By 1957, Minister Dey recognized that the development of village-
level initiative and action were lacking in the program and that there
was a failure in the Ministry of Community Development to recognize
excellence in the technical areas of agriculture, education, and health.
In 1960, he admits that priority should have been given to food pro-
duction and the Panchayati Raj when the program was initiated in 1952.
Minister Dey was directly or indirectly involved in community de-
velopment programs in Burma, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Iran,
Egypt, and Nepal.
Du Sautoy, Peter. 1958. Community Development in Ghana. London:
Oxford University Press.
This book details the progress and problems of the community de-
velopment program in Ghana which focused initially on mass literacy and
mass education. It emphasizes community self-help with the initiative
coming from the people themselves, i.e., not being imposed from above.
However, community development workers did employ a process of stimulation
to break down apathy and show people that what they want could be
achieved, if they were prepared to listen to new ideas and to help
themselves. The role of the community development agency is seen as one
of implementing rational policies through the provisions of program guide-
lines.
The community development program of work in Ghana was composed of
four parts, namely adult literacy, home economics, community self-help
projects, and extension campaigns. The latter were an attempt to teach
communities all types of improvement in their living, including health
and agricultural practices.
Mukerji, B. 1961. Community Development in India. Calcutta: Orient
Longmans.
This book provides an uncritical textbook treatment of community
development in India, its purpose being for use in the colleges and
universities in India. The author was associated with the community de-
velopment program from its initiation until 1960 when the book was published.
Singh, D.P. 1976. "The Pilot Development Project, Etawah." Paper pro-
duced for Expert Consultation on Integrated Rural Development. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
This paper describes the Etawah project, which was one of the success-
ful early post-Independence Indian village-level development efforts and
served as a prototype for the massive national community development pro-
gram. Begun under the sponsorship of the Uttar Pradesh provincial govern-
ment in 1948 with sixty-four villages, it expanded in three years to
include over three hundred villages.
The distinguishing features of the project are described as
a) The piecing together of a comprehensive and coherent
picture of rural development based on the combined
efforts of the people, government, voluntary workers,
and others concerned,
b) The adoption of a trial-and-experiment approach to
find out "what would work and what wouldn't and why,"
c) The testing of ideas, programs, organizational and
administrative patterns, and techniques of development
in a small area with a view to selecting ideas and
approaches for replication.
The project built upon the strengths of earlier rural and community
development efforts, particularly in India. Many saw this project at the
time as the alternative to the communist threat in rural India.
The major objectives of the project were considered to be:
a) "To see what degree of production and social
improvement, as well as of initiative, self-
confidence, and cooperation can be achieved
in the villages of a district not the bene-
ficiary of any set of special circumstances
and resources such as hydroelectric develop-
ment or large-scale industry."
b) "To ascertain how quickly those results may be
obtainable, consistent with their becoming
permanently part of the people's mental,
spiritual and technical equipment and outlook
after the special pressure is lifted."
c) "To see whether these results, if attainable,
could be at a cost in material and personnel
which would be within the reach of the State
(Province) by the existing departments and
agencies."
Some of the basic principles that guided the project included an
emphasis on self-help and on villagers' participation, the simultane-
ous improvement of both land and people, the good possibility of
replicability, an integrated approach, the use of an economic spear-
head, the changing of attitudes of the officials, a unified adminis-
tration, and an institutional development.
The program of work consisted of increasing agricultural pro-
duction, cooperative development, rural industries, rural works, adult
and formal education, health and sanitation, manternal and child
welfare.
4.4 Evaluation
Andrews, Stanley. 1961. A Comment and Review of Community Development
Projects--in Selected Countries of Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. International Cooperation Administration,
The Technical Assistance Study Group.
This controversial report by a former senior United States foreign
aid official had a major impact on the thinking of the United States foreign
aid officials about the role of community development in national develop-
ment. The author reviews community development programs in nine countries
to see what happened over a ten-year period.
Andrews' findings are as follows:
a) Community development programs should not be launched on
the premise that "since community development is good
every country must have it." Programs should be
launched only after all government agencies support the
concept and understand their role.
b) No community development program should be undertaken
until there has been a pilot effort.
c) The application of the "process" of community development
rather than the "doctrine" of community development should
be of prime concern and the actual partnership of other
agencies should be institutionally incorporated into the
total program, rather than using agricultural extension,
public health, fundamental education, etc., services in
community development programs.
d) There is a need to submerge the identification of
community development, agricultural extension, public
health, etc., under the concept of a task force with
another appropriate name such as "rural development."
The leadership of programs would then depend upon the
priority of the problem being addressed, but the pro-
cess of community development should be employed by
all agencies and their field agents.
e) There should be more training in the concepts and pro-
cesses of community development.
Braibanti, R. and J. Spengler, eds. 1963. Administration and Economic
Development in India. London: Cambridge University Press.
This excellent book contains several chapters which provide valuable
insights into community development. Hugh Tinker reports that the com-
munity development program was not really accepted by the people and
did not teach the poor, but rather was a bureaucratic empire. Still
the author did not consider it a lost cause and he held hope for the
Panchayati Raj (local self-government), calling it a major step forward.
Richard L. Park traces the origins of the community development program,
discusses the conflict between the traditional and the development adminis-
trations, and between centralized and decentralized administrations.
Park considers the major dilemma of community development to have been
whether or not agricultural production should receive the highest pri-
ority, and faults the program for its failure to involve village people
and for losing touch with the people the program was designed to
benefit.
Dumont, Rene. 1965. Lands Alive (Terres Vivantes). Translated by Gilbert
and Suzanne Sale. London: The Merlin Press.
In three thought-provoking and revealing chapters devoted to a dis-
cussion of India, the author, an early critic of the community development
program there, maintains that the community development leaderships'
priority that "changing villagers' attitudes towards progress [was] more
important than material results" was wrong. Rather, from the onset the
program should have stressed agricultural production, not investments in
community buildings, schools, clinics, and social welfare which only
increased consumption and population, further decreasing per capital pro-
duction.
Ensminger, Douglas. 1972. Rural India in Transition. New Delhi: All
India Panchayat Parishad.
In this book Dr. Ensminger attempts to appraise and put in per-
spective the Indian Community Development and Panchayati Raj programs of
the previous two decades and, from this experience, suggests lessons that have
application and implications for India over the next two decades. Those
interested in the recent history of Indian rural development will find this
book valuable in providing a concise and current appraisal of what happened
in India by one of those who led and supported that major community develop-
ment program.
Dr. Ensminger analyzes the genesis of the program and Nehru's guidance;
problems associated with the self-help concept and the village workers'
role; the relationships among agriculture, Panchayati Raj, cooperatives,
the village school, and the poorer villagers; and the special problems in
modernizing Indian village society.
He points out the inherent conflicts between the philosophies of a
people's self-help program on the one hand and administratively established
targets and an annual appropriation of funds by Parliament on the other which
negated the underlying philosophy of community development as a self-help
movement.
In his discussion of the role of the village worker and the conflict
between being a servant of the people and a functionary responding to the
demands of the technical ministries, including loan collection, the author
notes the natural tendency of the village worker to emphasize the latter
as a basic problem of the earlier program.
Ensminger, Douglas. 1974. "Rural Development: What Is It? (Its Contri-
bution to Nation Building)." Paper presented at the East-West Center's
Conference on Integrated Communication in Rural Development.
Honolulu.
The author, who was prominent in the international community develop-
ment movement and head of the Ford Foundation program in India for nineteen
years, shares his perception of the rise and decline of the community develop-
ment program in India.
In reviewing India's community development experience he points out
that while Prime Minister Nehru and other political leaders saw in community
development a way to improve the living conditions of village people, India's
planners saw it as the method of getting village cultivators to increase
their agricultural production. Neither understood the complexity and the
time required to transform India's village economy and culture. There was
disillusionment when food self-sufficiency was not reached in the 1950's, even
though India lacked new agricultural technology and government policies did
not provide incentives for farmers to increase production. The community
development program became the "scapegoat" supposedly responsible for the
failure to achieve food self-sufficiency.
Ford Foundation. Agricultural Production Team. 1959. Report on India's
Food Crisis and Steps to Meet It. New Delhi: Ministry of Food and
Agriculture and Ministry of Community Development, Government of
India.
This report, which called for an all-out emergency food production
program, greatly influenced the Indian government's community development
program. The report urges that the community development and technical
ministries give top priority to food production by increasing the number
of technical agricultural personnel assigned to blocks and villages and
recommended that community development village-level workers concentrate
on technical agricultural tasks. The community development program is
described as trying to be all things to all people and not giving adequate
attention to food production. It is critical of the Block Development
Officers for not understanding agriculture and using village-level workers
as errand boys. After this report was published, the focus of the govern-
ment's rural programs clearly shifted to food production and community
development declined.
Inter-regional Conference on Community Development and Its Role in Nation
Building. 1961. Community Development and Its Role in Nation
Building; A report of a technical conference on community develop-
ment sponsored jointly by the Republic of Korea and U.S. International
Cooperation Agency. Seoul.
This is a report on the last of a series of six international com-
munity development conferences sponsored by the United States that con-
tributed to the spread of community development programs around the world.
Senator John Sparkman of the United States addressed the conference
as an ardent advocate of community development and stated:
"The genius of community development is clear: it
is the most effective way of harnessing the moti-
vation and aspirations of the millions of ordinary
people to the gigantic effort of national develop-
ment. The potentially explosive rising tide of
expectations becomes transformed into what President
Kennedy has called the people's revolution of hope."
By 1961 national leaders in India and several other countries were
disillusioned with community development as an approach to development.
Douglas Ensminger, head of the Ford Foundation in India, reports in his
conference paper that in 1959 both westerners and India's top adminis-
trators and political leaders began to express great dissatisfaction with
India's achievements in community development and some concluded that the
community development program had failed. Ensminger contends that these
observers lacked understanding of the process and time required for change.
The report also includes insightful papers on community development pro-
grams in the Philippines, Nigeria, Thailand, and Korea.
Nair, Kusum. 1966. Blossoms in the Dust: The Human Factor in Indian
Development. New York: Praeger.
This is a perceptive report on the diversity of attitudes and aspirations
of India's village people towards life and work in the late 1950's. The
author reports that the community development program primarily benefited
the wealthier villages, that community improvement projects were often
identified by the community development agency's officers rather than the
villagers and were not being maintained by the villagers, that most community
development projects did not increase the villagers' income, and that the
success of the village council (panchayats) was a function of the atti-
tudes and leadership abilities of the council members.
Nehru, Jawaharlal. 1967. Community Development and Panchayati Raj.
Delhi: Ministry of Broadcasting, Government of India.
This is a compilation of speeches by Prime Minister Nehru covering
the period from the initiation of the community development program in
1952 until 1963 when the program emphasis had shifted to the Panchayati
Raj (local self-government) and cooperative development.
From 1952 to 1955 Nehru asserts that the community development pro-
gram was the nation's most important undertaking, basic to India's develop-
ment and successful in all respects. Then, from 1956 to 1958 he refers
increasingly to the need to emphasize agricultural production and in
1958 states that the success of the community development program will
be measured by food production. By 1958, it is clear that Nehru has other
reservations about the community development program. He urges community
development personnel to shed their "official" character and to gain the
confidence of the rural people and states that community development has,
regretfully, only partially succeeded in mobilizing villages. By 1960
the focus is on strengthening government and local economic development
through local cooperatives. He chides the community development program
for being too centralized and village-level workers for considering them-
selves "big bosses," but expects that community development's loss of
appeal will be overcome by the Panchayati Raj which would change society.
From 1961 to 1963, his interest is in the Panchayati Raj which is of
"revolutionary importance" because it gives power and authority to the
villagers. At this time he sees community development as the first step,
and Panchayati Raj and cooperatives as the second step, which would bring
political and economic development to India.
Poston, Richard W. 1962. Democracy Speaks Many Tongues, Community
Development Around the World. New York: Harper and Row.
This book by a prominent community development advocate was widely
read by the American public and represents the view of those who felt
that community development was a democratic alternative to communism.
It was seen as the means of creating the conditions around the world
that would be essential to the growth of freedom in the developing world.
The author is critical of the United States foreign aid agency for
not emphasizing community development more as an approach to development.
He attributes this to the threat that community development poses to the
professional and bureaucratic interests of the United States foreign aid
officials, particularly those identified with agricultural extension
programs. This error was attributed to the importance of technology
and specialization in American life, which are inappropriate to the
development of villages in the developing world. The author believes
that no amount of technical assistance or economic aid rendered in
accordance with the lines of specialization found in America would be
sufficient to deal with the basic difficulties of the developing world.
Sanders, Irwin T. 1958. Community Development and National Change.
Summary of Conference sponsored by Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Center for International Studies, December, 1957.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. International Cooperation Administration.
This publication summarizes the major points from a conference attended
mainly by Americans prominent in international economic development and the
community development movement of the 1950's. It identifies many of the
basic issues being discussed by community development practitioners and
economic development planners, particularly in nations receiving assistance
from the United States foreign aid agency.
The publication briefly reviews the origins and definitions of com-
munity development and its role in reaching the United States foreign
policy objective of stable, effective, and democratic nation states, then
focuses on central issues faced and results achieved in community develop-
ment programs. The central issues discussed include:
a) How can community development programs be made to
work when success depends upon an elite who controls
the government and all other major institutions of
the society?
b) How can the dilemma of requiring a great deal of
authority, power, and political administration at
the center of national community development programs
while at the same time releasing a substantial amount
of it to small communities be resolved?
c) How effective is community development as an approach
to economic development?
d) By what authority do outsiders initiate rural change, to
what degree can they predict the results of their efforts,
and what are some of the social mechanisms of change?
e) In what ways can the practice of community development
be made more effective?
There was a divergence of opinion among conference participants with
regard to the effectiveness of community development programs as indicated
by the following statements of the skeptics and the endorsers:
The skeptics:
a) If one's goals are economic as measured in terms of gross
national product or some other index of economic achievement,
community development represents an inefficient method of
trying to reach them.
b) If one does not work out some way of preventing population
increase, the relatively slow economic gains which accrue
will be absorbed by the increase and not result in a higher
standard of living.
c) Since social changes are so unpredictable, any effort to pro-
mote change is fraught with danger for all concerned.
d) Since community development programs call for leaders who are
achievement oriented, they cannot succeed unless such leaders
are present and can evoke a following. Most underdeveloped
countries lack achievement-oriented people so there is little
hope that community development programs can work well in such
places.
e) In many, if not most situations, it is better to work
through already established agencies (agriculture, health,
education, welfare) than to try to channel village
improvement through a community development program.
f) In some countries a community development program raises
the popular level of aspirations and sense of participation,
which is politically disturbing to "the powers that be" and
therefore endangers supposedly "friendly" regimes.
The endorsers:
a) If one is interested in what happens to people--materially,
psychologically, and socially--then community development is a
fruitful way of betterment.
b) It is sound on economic grounds, even viewed from the standpoint
of the whole economy, since it makes use of an underutilized
labor supply with a minimum use of capital investment.
c) It leads to political stability in that it is a means of prepar-
ing peasants for effective and enlightened participation in the
national state.
d) It is an economical use of scarce government specialists in
health, welfare, agriculture, and education since the community
development worker can extend his usefulness in many ways.
e) The villages of the world are bound to experience cataclysmic
change in any event and community development represents one
of the best ways by which local people and national leaders
can help guide this change.
f) Through the proper use of what the social scientists already
know much can be predicted as to community development out-
comes. Programs could be more successful than they now are.
While none of the basic issues related to community development were
resolved, this conference did provide an intellectual framework within
which the issues were identified and discussed, and the summary report
influenced the thinking of many leaders and community development
practitioners.
Taylor, Carl C., et al. 1966. India's Roots of Democracy: A Sociological
Analysis of Rural India's Experience in Planned Development Since
Independence. New York: Praeger.
This book by four prominent foreign authorities on India's develop-
ment efforts since Independence is a fascinating study of that nation's
progress and problems. Chapter 9, "The Community Development Extension
Program" by Douglas Ensminger, is particularly useful to those interested
in India's community development program. This chapter discusses the
early origins of community development in India, the prominent people
involved, the rationale of community development (e.g., why British or
American extension approaches would be inadequate), and the progress and
problems of the community development program as it developed. Some of
the weaknesses in the program are identified as the lack of trained and
experienced personnel during the period of rapid program expansion, the
lack of community development and extension technical know-how, the formu-
lation of false theories and an inadequate understanding of how to motivate
individuals and local groups, the use of too much "top-down" direction,
and the failure to use community development methods in agricultural
extension where it is necessary to reach large numbers of cultivators to
disseminate improved agricultural practices.
United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 1963. Community
Development and National Development. New York.
The United Nations report was used by community development proponents
to try to gain additional support from national leaders and planners in
countries where national programs were declining. The report calls for the
United Nations to "significantly expand the means at its disposal to
encourage the improvement and extension of community development programs."
The report calls for departments of government in developing countries and
cooperating international agencies to understand the philosophy and practice
of community development and the broad purposes to which their skills and
interests relate. The report reflects the growing animosities between
national community development agencies and the technical ministries
(primarily agriculture, health, and education) in a number of countries.
Wiser, William and Charlotte. 1963. Behind Mud Walls 1930-1960.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
While not focused on the community development movement per se, this
well-known study of village life in North India provides an understanding
of the technological, economic, and social change from 1930, when the
original study was completed, to thirty years later when the villagers
were provided some government services, including community development.
The authors were generally impressed by the village-level community
development worker and technical specialists. The transfer of land
ownership after independence was considered as the essential first
step toward rural development and the establishment of the "block"
structure for providing services to all of rural India was considered
even more far-reaching. Development of new local leadership and the
greater powers given the village council (panchayat) are seen as very
significant contributions of the government to the life of the village.
The most important factor in the willingness of the villagers to pro-
gress (in 1961) was seen as the characteristics and attitudes of the
village council president.
5.1 Community Development Bibliographies
"Community Development Review Index 1956-1963." 1963. Community Develop-
ment Review 8 (1): 49-65.
Cordero, Felicidad V. An Annotated Bibliography on Community Development
in the Philippines from 1946-59. Vol. 1. (Content and Methodology.)
University of the Philippines. Community Deyelopment Council.
Dunham, Arthur and Rameshwar Nath Paul. 1959. "Community Development--
A Working Bibliography." Community Development Review 4 (1);
60-90.
Jantzen, Carl R. and Iwao Ishino. 1962. A Working Bibliography on Com-
munity Development. Bibliography No. 2. East Lansing: Institute
for Community Development and Services, Continuing Education Service,
Michigan State University (December).
Lackey, Alvin S. 1963. "A Working Bibliography on Community Development."
Community Development Review 8 (2): 101-104.
ed. 1972. Community Development Abstracts. Vol. 2. New York:
Essay Press.
London University. Community Development Clearing House. 1961-1962.
Bulletin of Acquisitions: A Selective List of Articles, Reports and
Other Publications. Vol. 2. (November-May).
Manny, Elsie Sherman. 1956. Rural Community Organization; Selected Anno-
tated References. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Mezirow, Jack D. 1963. The Literature of Community Development--A
Bibliographic Guide. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency for International
Development (May).
National Institute of Community Development. 1962. Bibliography on
Community Development. Mussoorie: National Institute of Community
Development, Government of India.
Sociological Abstracts, Inc. 1964. Community Development Abstracts, Vol. 1.
prepared for U.S. Agency for International Development.
South Pacific Commission. 1953. A Bibliography of Co-operation in the
South Pacific. Revised edition. Technical Paper No. 51. Noumea,
New Caledonia.
United Nations. Secretariat. Department of Social Affairs. 1953.
Selected List of Books, Pamphlets and Periodicals in English on
Community Organization and Development. Document ST/SOA/SER. 0 15,
TAA/SER. D/5. New York.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 1954.
Education for Community Development; a Selected Bibliography.
Educational Studies and Documents, no. 7, Paris.
United States Agency for International Development. 1966. Index of
Technical Publications. Community Development Publications.
TCR/ISDS (March).
Bureau for Technical Assistance, Office of Development
Administration, Development Reference Service. 1970. Index of
Community Development Publications. Community Development Publi-
cations. -11. Washington, D.C. (April).
United States Foreign Operations Administration. Community Development
Division. 1955. A Selected Bibliography on Community Development.
Washington, D.C.
United States International Cooperation Administration. Community
Development Division. 1960. Bibliography on Community Develop-
ment. (Mimeo). Washington, D.C.
5.2 General Biblioqraphy
Abueva, Jose V. 1959.
of the Philippine C
Ramon Magsaysay. M,
of the Philippines.
Focus on
community
anila:
the Barrio;
Development
Institute of
the Story Behind the Birth
Program Under President
Public Administration, University
African Community Development Conference, Tripoli. 1958. African Com-
munity Development Conference in Libya: Summary, prepared by Jean
Ogden.
Alderfer, H. Freed. 1964. Local Government in Developing Countries.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Almond, Gabriel
ing Areas.
and James Coleman. 1960. The Politics of the Develop-
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Anderson, D. David. 1960. The National Community Development Program
of Jordan--Its Aims and Accomplishments. United States Operations
Mission to Jordan.
Andrews, Stanley. 1961. A Comment and Review of Community Development
Projects--in Selected Countries of Africa, the Middle East and
Asia. Washington, D.C.: The Technical Assistance Study Group, U.S.
International Cooperation Administration.
Anstey, Vera.
Longmans,
Appleby, Paul H.
New Delhi:
Government
1952. The Economic Development of India. London:
Green and Company.
1956.
Cabinet
of India.
Re-Examination of India's Administrative System.
Secretariat, Organisation of Methods Division,
Badeau, John S. 1960. "Community Development in Korea: An Address."
New York: Near East Foundation (April).
Batten, Thomas R. 1957. Communities and Their Development.
Oxford University Press.
London:
1960. "The Trouble Spots." Kurukshetra 9 (1).
1962. Training for Community Development: A Critical Study of
Method. London: Oxford University Press.
Bhattacharyya, S. N. 1970. Community Development: Analysis of the Pro-
gramme in India. Calcutta: Academic Publishers.
1972. Community Development in Developing Countries. Calcutta:
Academic Publishers.
Binamira, Ramon P. 1957. The Philippine Community Development Program.
Manila: Office of the Presidential Assistant on Community Development.
Braibanti, R. and J. Spengler, eds.
DeveloDment in India. London:
1963. Administration and Economic
Cambridge University Press.
Brayne, F. L. 1946. Socrates in an Indian Village. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Brown, Lucy W. 1961. "Community
and South Asian Countries."
Cooperation Administration.
Development and the Progress of Near East
Washington, D.C.: U.S. International
Chai, Alice Yun. 1968. Community Development in Korea. Honolulu: East-
West Center.
Cohen, Ronald. 1961. "The Success that Failed; An Experiment in Culture
Change in Africa." Anthropologica 3 (1): 21-36.
Cool, John C. 1962. The Panchayat System and Self-Help Development.
Kathmandu, Nepal: Community Development Advisor, U.S. AID Mission
(March).
Community Development Foundation. 1968. Messages on Community Develop-
ment from Heads of State to International Society for Community
Development. Supplement. New York.
Council for Social Development. 1970. Action for Rural Change: Readings
in Indian Community Development. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Danda, Ajit Kumar. 1966. Planned Development and Leadership in an Indian
Village. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Dayal, Rajeshwar. 1960, 1966. Community Development Program in India.
Allahabad: Kitab Mahal.
Dey, S(urendra) K(umar). 1962. Community Development--A Chronicle 1954-
1961. Delhi: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government
of India.
1964. Community Development. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Dey, Sushil K. 1960. Spare-Time Production
Programme for Rural Communities. Rome:
Organization of the United Nations.
for Gain: Proposal for a New
Food and Agriculture
DiFranco, Joseph. 1958. Differences Between Extension Education and
Community Development. Comparative Extension Pub. No. 5. Ithaca:
New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University
(October).
Dube, S. C. 1958.
Development.
India's Changing Villages--Human Factors in Community
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Dumont, Rene. 1965. Lands Alive (Terres Vivantes). Translated by
Gilbert and Suzanne Sale. London: The Merlin Press.
Du Sautoy, Peter. 1958.
University Press.
Community Development in Ghana. London: Oxford
1963. "A Guide for the Administrator to the Principles of Com-
munity Development." Journal of Local Administration Overseas 2(4);
204-211.
Dutta, R. C. 1950. Economic History of India. London: London Univer-
sity.
Ensminger, Douglas. 1972. Rural India in Transition. New Delhi: All
India Panchayat Parishad.
1974. "Rural
Nation Building)."
ence on Integrated
Development: What Is It? (Its Contribution to
Paper presented at the East-West Center's Confer-
Communication for Rural Development. Honolulu.
Espiritu, Socorro C. and Chester L. Hunt. 1964. Social Foundations of
Community Development: Readings on the Philippines. Manila:
R. M. Garcia Publishing House.
Fairholm, G. W. 1964. "Local Government and Community Development in the
Northern Emirates of Northern Nigeria." Journal of Local Administration
Overseas 3 (3): 156-163.
Fellows, P. A. 1963. "Community Development in Ethiopia." International
Review of Community Development n. 11.
Ford Foundation.
Food Crisis
Agriculture
Agricultural Production Team. 1959. Report on India's
and Steps to Meet It. New Delhi: Ministry of Food and
and Ministry of Community Development, Government of India.
Friedlander, Walter A. 1968. Introduction to Social Welfare. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Great Britain. Colonial Office. 1958. Community Development, A Handbook.
London: H. M. Stationery Office.
Green, James W. 1961. "Success and Failure in Technical Assistance: A
Case Study." Human Organization 20 (1): 2-10.
Haney, Emil B., Jr. 1964. "The Israeli Kibbutzim--Blueprints for Com-
munity Development." A paper presented to Prof. W. Glade, School
of Commerce, University of Wisconsin (January).
Hayden, Lyle J. 1949. "Living Standards in Rural Iran--A Case Study."
Middle East Journal 3 (2): 140-150.
Hodgdon, Linwood L. 1961. Community Development in Korea; An Evaluation
Survey of the NACOM Grant-in-Aid Program. San Francisco: Community
Development Division, U.S. Operations Mission to Korea.
Hough, Richard L. 1968. AID Administration to the Rural Sector; JCRR
Experience in Taiwan and Its Application in Other Countries. AID
discussion paper No. 17. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency for Inter-
national Development.
India. Famine Inquiry Commission, J. A. Woodhead, Chairman. 1945. Final
Report. Madras: Superintendent, Government Press.
India (Republic), Community Projects Administration. 1956. Manual for
Village Level Workers.
Ministry of Community Development. 1957. Report. 1956-57.
New Delhi.
Ministry of Community Development and Cooperation. 1965.
Annual Conference on Community Development and Panchayati Raj at
Springar, July 1965, Main Recommendations, Proceedings, and Agenda
Notes. New Delhi.
Planning Commission. Programme Evaluation Organisation. 1960.
The Seventh Evaluation Report on Community Development and Some
Allied Fields. New Delhi.
Planning Commission. Programme Evaluation Organisation. 1970.
Evaluation Study of Post-Stage II Blocks. New Delhi.
Team for the Study of Community Projects and National Extension
Service, B. G. Mehta, leader. 1958. Report. New Delhi: Government
of India Press.
Inter-regional Conference on Community Development and Its Role in Nation
Building. 1961. Community Development and Its Role in Nation Build-
ing, A Report of a Technical Conference on Community Development,
sponsored jointly by the Republic of Korea and U.S. International
Cooperation Agency. Seoul.
Jain, S. C. 1967. Community Development and Panchayati Raj in India.
Calcutta: Allied Publishers.
Karnjanaprakorn, Choop. 1965. "The Role of Informal Organization in
Community Development: Thai Experience." Thai Journal of Public
Administration 4 (2).
Khan, Iltija Husain. 1964. Community Development in India: A Critical
Evaluation. Aligarh: Aligarh Muslim University.
Kempe, M. E. and L. D. Smith, eds. 1971. Community Development--Kenyan
Strategies for Improving Rural Welfare. Proceedings of a Workshop
held at the Insitute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi.
(May-June).
Korea (Republic). Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Office of Rural
Development. 1962. An Outline of Agricultural Guidance Work in
Korea. Suwon.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Office of Rural Development.
1963. Rural Guidance Work in Korea. Suwon.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Office of Rural Development.
1965. Report of the Workshop on Professional Education for Community
Development--April 17-19, 1965. Chang Ang University and ECAFE. Seoul.
___ Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Office of Rural Development.
1967. Rural Guidance Work in Korea--A Decade of Rural Progress
(1957-1967). Suwon.
Ministry of Reconstruction. National Council of Community Develop-
ment. 1958. Community Development Addresses--ROK National Community
Development Conference: Seoul, Korea, August 21, 1958. Seoul.
Ministry of Reconstruction. National Council of Community Develop-
ment. 1959. Community Development Programs: Annual Report (1958 and
1959). Seoul.
Ministry of Reconstruction. National Council of Community Develop-
ment. 1959. Community Organization: Selected Articles. Seoul.
Ministry of Reconstruction. National Council of Community Develop-
ment. 1960. Community Development Programs: Annual Report--1960. Seoul.
Ministry of Reconstruction. National Council of Community Develop-
ment. 1961. Community Development in Korea. Seoul.
Ministry of Reconstruction. National Council of Community Develop-
ment. 1961. Your Work With Villagers: A Guide for NACOM Village Workers.
Seoul.
Ministry of Reconstruction. National Council of Community Develop-
ment. 1961. 1961: Community Development Program in Korea. Seoul.
Madigan, Francis C., S. J. 1962. The Farmer Said No: A Study of Back-
ground Factors Associated With Dispositions to Cooperate With or Be
Resistant to Community Development Projects. Quezon City, Philippines:
Community Development Research Council, University of the Philippines.
Malaviya, H. D.
Press.
1956. Village Panchayats in India. New Delhi: Ananda
Mason, Edward S. 1955. Promoting Economic Development--The U. S. and
Southern Asia. Claremont: Claremont College.
Mayer, Albert and Associates. 1958.
University of California Press.
Pilot Project, India.
Mezirow, Jack D. 1963. Dynamics of Community Development. New York:
Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Millikan, Max F. and D. L. Blackmer, eds. 1961. The Emerging Nations.
Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Miner, William R. 1961. Seven Case Capsules from Korea's Community De-
velopment Program. Bureau of Community Development, Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry, Korea, and Community Development Division,
United States Operations Mission to Korea.
Mosher, A. T. 1958. Varieties of Extension Education and Community
Development. Ithaca: Rural Education Department, New York State
College of Agriculture at Cornell University.
Mukerji, B. 1961. Community Development in India. Calcutta: Orient
Longmans.
Myrdal, Gunnar. 1968. Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of
Nations. New York: Pantheon.
Nair, Kusum. 1966. Blossoms in the Dust: The Human Factor in Indian
Development. New York: Praeger.
Najjar, Halim. 1970. Community Development:
Beirut: The Rihani House.
The Facts and the Myth.
Namboodiripad, E.M.S. 1958.
People's Publishing Hous(
The Mahatma and the Ism.
New Delhi:
Narayan, Shriman. 1944. The Gandhian Plan of Economic Development for
India. Bombay: Padma Publications.
. 1960. Principles of Gandhian Planning.
Berkeley:
Allahabad: Kitab Mahal.
Neal, Ernest. 1964. "A Report on Community Development in the Philippines,
East Pakistan and India." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency for Inter-
national Development (March).
1972. Hope for the Wretched: A Narrative Report of Technical
Assistance Experiences. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency for Inter-
national Development.
Nehru, Jawaharlal. 1958. Toward Freedom, the Autobiography of Jawaharlal
Nehru. Boston: Beacon Press.
1967. Community Development and Panchayati Raj. Delhi:
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India.
Pakistan. Village AID Administration. 1954. The Village Agricultural
Industrial Development Programme: Manual for Village Workers.
Karachi: Government of Pakistan.
Village AID Administration. 1956. Village Aid; Five Year Plan,
1955-56, 1959-60. Karachi: Government of Pakistan.
Paulson, Belden. 1964. "Difficulties and Prospects for Community Develop-
ment in Northeast Brazil." Inter-American Economic Affairs 17 (4):
37-58.
Philippines (Republic). Office of the Presidential Assistant on Community
Development. 1965. A Brief Statement of the Community Development
Program. Manila.
Poston, Richard W. 1962. Democracy Speaks Many Tongues, Community De-
velopment Around the World. New York: Harper and Row.
Pye, Lucian W. 1961. "Community Development: Political Implications of
Community Development--a Background Paper." New Brunswick: Care-
Peace Crops-Community Development Project at Rutgers University.
Raynolds, Dana D. 1967. "Role of Local Government and Voluntary Organi-
zation in Community Development." Washington, D.C.: Society for
International Development.
Ruopp, Phillips, ed. 1959. Approaches to Community Development: A
Symposium Introductory to Problems and Methods of Village Welfare in
Underdeveloped Areas. The Hague: V. van Hoeve.
Sanders, Irwin T. 1958. Community Development and National Change.
Summary of Conference sponsored by Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, Center for International Studies, December, 1957. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. International Cooperation Administration.
SEATO Conference on Community Development. 1960. Report. Baguio,
Philippines.
Shields, James J., Jr. 1967. Education in Community Development: Its
Function in Technical Assistance. New York: Praeger.
Singh, D. P. 1976. "The Pilot Development Project, Etawah." Paper pro-
duced for Expert Consultation on Integrated Rural Development. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Taylor, Carl C. 1962. "Community Development as a Tool of the Agency for
International Development." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency for Inter-
national Development.
et. al. 1966. India's Roots of Democracy: A Sociological Analysis
of Rural India's Experience in Planned Development Since Independence.
New York: Praeger.
Taylor, Paul S. 1958. "Community Development." Technical Lecture No. 10,
Seoul: Office of the Economic Coordinator for Korea, United Nations Command.
Thorner, Daniel. 1956. The Agrarian Prospect in India. Delhi: University
of Delhi Press.
and Alice. 1962. Land and Labor in India. New York: Asia Publish-
ing House.
Tumin, Melvin M. 1958. "Some Social Requirements for Effective Community
Development." Community Development Review No. 11 (December): 1-39.
United Nations. 1962. Report of the Asian Seminar on Planning and
Administration of National Community Development Programmes: Bangkok,
Thailand 22 August 1 September, 1961. New York.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 1957. Study Kit on
Training for Community Development. New York.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 1963. Community
Development and National Development. New York.
Economic and Social Council. 1955. Principles of Community
Development--Social Progress Through Local Action.
Economic Commission for Africa. 1959. Report on the Workshop on
Planning and Administration of National Programmes of Community
Development, Addis Ababa, Ethopia, 14-25 September, 1959. New York.
Economic Commission for Africa. 1963. Community Development
Evaluation Mission to Ghana.
United Nations. Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East.
Community Development and Economic Development. Bangkok.
1960.
Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East. 1963. The Role
of Local Leadership for Community Development in Asian Countries.
Bangkok.
Office for Public Administration. 1959. Public Administration
Aspects of Community Development Programmes. New York.
Technical Assistance Administration. 1958. Report of the Mission
to Survey Community Development in Africa. New York.
Technical Assistance Administration. 1959. Report of the Com-
munity Development Evaluation Mission in India...23 November 1958 -
3 April 1959. New Delhi: Ministry of Community Development and
Cooperation.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Commission
on the Status of Women. 1967. The Participation of Women in Community
Development Programmes: The Preliminary Report of the Secretary
General. New York.
United States Congress. House. 1962. Report of The Committee on Foreign
Affairs on H. R. 11921. H. R. 1788, 87th Cong., 2d sess.
United States Economic Survey Mission to the Philippines. 1950. Report to
the President of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
United States International Cooperation Administration. Team I. 1955.
Community Development Programs in India, Pakistan and the Philippines.
Washington, D.C. (October).
Team III. 1955.
Egypt and Gold Coast.
Community Development Programs in India, Iran,
Washington, D.C. (December).
1956. "The Community Development Guidelines of the International
Cooperation Administration." Community Development Review No. 3
(December): 3-6.
1959. "Concept and Policy." Community Development Conference--
Training. Bandarawela, Ceylon (May).
Community Development Division. 1961. "Community Development
in the Near East and South Asia." (January).
Valsan, E.H. 1970. Community Development Programs and Rural Local Govern-
ment. New York: Praeger.
Violich, Francis, and Juan B. Astica. 1967.
Urban Planning Process in Latin America.
California.
Community Development and the
Los Angeles: University of
72
Whyte, William Foote. 1975. Organizing for Agricultural Development.
New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Wickwar, Hardy. 1968. "Community Development Administration in the 1960's."
International Review of Administrative Sciences 34(3): 224-232.
Wiser, William and Charlotte. 1963. Behind Mud Walls 1930-1960. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Wraith, R. E. 1964. "Community Development in Nigeria." Journal of Local
Administration Overseas 3(2): 92-102.
MSU RURAL DEVELOPMENT PAPERS
Akhter Hameed Khan, "Ten Decades of Rural Development:
Lessons from India," 1978.
Lane E. Holdcroft, "The Rise and Fall of Community
Development in Developing Countries, 1950-65: A
Critical Analysis and an Annotated Bibliography," 1978.
Single copies of the MSU Rural Development Papers may be obtained free
of charge by writing to: MSU Rural Development Papers, Department of
Agricultural Economics, 206 International Center, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, U.S.A.
RDP No. 1
RDP No. 2
|
