[sub] Principles2.mp3

[sub] Principles 2.mp3 - powered by Happy Scribe

Welcome back to listen to of principlesof good local development costs.

So let's take a look at what you'lllearn in this training video.

characterizes top down development. Next, we'll talk about a different wayof working, using a bottom up approach. And third, we'll consider some

of the benefits and also some importantlimitations of each of these approaches.

We all come to this work wanting to makea positive difference in people's lives.

But as we get going in the work,very often there's a big reality check as

we discover the many differentobstacles that are impeding change.

Politics gets in the way.

There are logistical challenges of working

in complex, sometimes extremelychallenging environments

and sometimes as well,

it seems that the structures that we'reworking with, the funding structures,

the project structures, don't supportmeaningful change at the local level.

It's frustrating.

And I think because of this frustration,

there's often a tendencyto place blame elsewhere.

Diners blame local NGOs,

local NGOs blame international NGOs.

But throughout this course,

I want to encourage you to move awayfrom this blame game and instead to look

at the overarching dynamics that formthe industry that we're working with.

And a good place to start is to consider

the difference between top downand bottom up development.

Now, you've probably heard these terms

before, but let's get our definitionsstraight before we go any further.

By top down approaches,what people generally mean is

that the organizations that introducea project to communities may be a donor or

an international NGOidentify a problem they want to address.

Maybe it's extreme poverty or poornutrition or gender based violence.

Then they design a program or a setof solutions to address that problem.

Most of this work generally happens

in their office, far removed from thecommunities where it will be implemented.

Then they introduce this beautifullydesigned project to the local level.

Now, this, of course,

is a short summarized versionof what actually happens.

Project design is a lotmore complicated than this.

But what I want you to focus on here isthat the top down model comes entirely

from the donor or the NGO that'sdesigning and implementing the project.

In this approach, communitymembers have no real involvement.

The role is pretty much limited

to receiving what's being givenand hopefully being grateful for it.

Very clear top down approaches can be

seen, for example,in types of humanitarian aid,

the short term support that's givenin emergency situations such as wars or

natural disastersbecause of the fast paced nature

of humanitarian aid in the sometimesvery dangerous working environment.

It's not uncommon for project designersand managers to work from their offices,

maybe in New York or Geneva or London,managing the project remotely.

In this way of working,

there's very little reflectionof the local context and no real

opportunity for community members to getinvolved unless the donor or the NGO

decides to employ somelocals to run the project.

And if the donor or NGO hasn't paidattention to community structures,

it's likely that their approachwon't reflect the local context.

The project might not consider how peoplesee themselves and their culture

and might not reflect theirvalues or what they need.

There are so many reasons for peopletaking this top down approach,

sometimes decision makers are located toofar away from their target communities.

Sometimes the staff implementingthe project don't feel they have the time

or the local networks to be ableto engage effectively with communities.

Other times, it simply doesn't occur

to project staff to engagewith community members.

Maybe they think that people don't have

the right technical knowledge tounderstand the work that they're doing.

Yet other times,

top down just feels easier like the saferoption because there are fewer risks

of things going pear shaped,because there are fewer people to manage.

Now, the reasons might be understandable,but the results tend to be the same.

The project is designed and implemented

by the organization that ownsthe project that controls the resources.

There's little to no sense of local

ownership over the project which ishappening in the community.

And this means that there's little to nochance of the project being sustainable

after project funding finishes unless newfunding is brought in to take its place.

Now let's consider the opposite.

Bottom-Up approachesapproaches that are purely Bottom-Up or

initiatives or projects theyinstigated and led locally.

For example, a community group mightdecide they need to deal with a particular

issue through discussing with eachother and combining their resources.

They come up with an approachthat they think might work.

Maybe their efforts are led by a local

organization, or maybe it'smore informal than that.

And they just a groupof concerned citizens.

Regardless in this bottom up approach,it's the locals who are responsible

for defining the problemfrom their perspective.

They're also responsible for designing

and implementing it in their community,using their local knowledge and networks

to engage the right peopleand to get local support.

Now you can see that using this community

led project, whatever they decide to dowill reflect the problem as they see it as

community members, which also makesit designed for their context,

pretty different to top down.

Right

now, many people argue that the bottom up

approach is much betterthan the top down approach.

Community development workersin particular tend to prefer this approach

because often they spend a lotof time in the community.

They might even live in the community so

they can work closely with the communityin facilitating the process.

But I also don't want to romanticizethe bottom up approach.

There are importantlimitations to be aware of.

One important limitation is that the work

tends to be specificto that particular community.

There's no obvious way of scaling

the project in a range of communitiesbecause a pure bottom up approach means

that the community decidesfor themselves what's important.

Another important limitation is it isprobably not the right approach if

the root cause of the problemisn't in the community itself,

the problem might bewith government service providers.

For example,

in these situations,community led initiatives might be able

to address symptoms of the problems,but not the root cause.

For example, if government serviceproviders need to become more effective

in meeting community needs,the community could be more mobilized

to become more vocal with theirgovernment and push for change.

But if the problems are simply

that the government doesn't havethe capacity or the knowledge or

the resources to provide these services,well, it's also important to work higher

up the chain with governmentservice providers themselves.

Another important limitation is perhapsobvious, but it's often overlooked.

Communities aren't always right.

A pure bottom up approach might be wrong,

for example, if cultural practicesgo against people's human rights.

So, for example,

in communities where there is honorkilling, so killing of women and girls

who damage family honor by having sexoutside my marriage,

if that's an accepted practicein that culture,

community members who supportthe practice might not want to change it.

You'd need to find particular sectorsof the community who are actively working

against it and look at howyou could support them.

But this would probably also need to be

complemented with other approaches,such as providing safe refuge for those

women and girls,which would likely involve some top down

elements, some elements which areexternal to the community.

And finally, community members themselves

might feel so disempowered that eventhough they agree it's a problem,

they might not believe theycan do anything about it.

In these cases,simply waiting for community members

to come up with their ownsolutions probably won't work.

You need to take a more active role.

So you see there is no magical solution.

Top down development clearly has problems,

but bottom up development alsodoesn't hold the whole answer.

There are also some important limitationsthat we need to find a middle path

that allows us to incorporate someof the positive aspects of both.

Next lesson, we'll explore how it isthat we arrived at this binary of top down

and bottom up development as though theseare the only two approaches,

and then we'll consider some alternateapproaches that we can apply in our work.

So let's review what we learnedin this training video.

First, we looked at what top down

development looks like,the people who tend to lead the process

and what this means for projectsustainability at the local level.

Second, we looked at purely Bottom-Up

approaches, and we also considered someimportant limitations in this approach.

And finally, we considered the need

to take a middle path which incorporatespositive elements of both.

Thanks for joining me.

Next up, we'll continue looking at topdown and bottom up development.

Principles2.mp4

Principles 2.mp4 - powered by Happy Scribe

Welcome back to listen to of principles of good local development costs. So let's take a look at what you'll learn in this training video. First, we'll look at what typically characterizes top down development. Next, we'll talk about a different way of working, using a bottom up approach. And third, we'll consider some of the benefits and also some important limitations of each of these approaches. We all come to this work wanting to make a positive difference in people's lives.

But as we get going in the work, very often there's a big reality check as we discover the many different obstacles that are impeding change. Politics gets in the way. There are logistical challenges of working in complex, sometimes extremely challenging environments and sometimes as well, it seems that the structures that we're working with, the funding structures, the project structures, don't support meaningful change at the local level. It's frustrating. And I think because of this frustration, there's often a tendency to place blame elsewhere.

Diners blame local NGOs, local NGOs blame international NGOs. But throughout this course, I want to encourage you to move away from this blame game and instead to look at the overarching dynamics that form the industry that we're working with. And a good place to start is to consider the difference between top down and bottom up development.

Now, you've probably heard these terms before, but let's get our definitions straight before we go any further. By top down approaches, what people generally mean is that the organizations that introduce a project to communities may be a donor or an international NGO identify a problem they want to address. Maybe it's extreme poverty or poor nutrition or gender based violence. Then they design a program or a set of solutions to address that problem. Most of this work generally happens in their office, far removed from the communities where it will be implemented.

Then they introduce this beautifully designed project to the local level. Now, this, of course, is a short summarized version of what actually happens. Project design is a lot more complicated than this. But what I want you to focus on here is that the top down model comes entirely from the donor or the NGO that's designing and implementing the project.

In this approach, community members have no real involvement. The role is pretty much limited to receiving what's being given and hopefully being grateful for it.

Very clear top down approaches can be seen, for example, in types of humanitarian aid, the short term support that's given in emergency situations such as wars or natural disasters because of the fast paced nature of humanitarian aid in the sometimes very dangerous working environment, it's not uncommon for project designers and managers to work from their offices, maybe in New York or Geneva or London, managing the project remotely. In this way of working, there's very little reflection of the local context and no real opportunity for community members to get involved unless the donor or the NGO decides to employ some locals to run the project.

And if the donor or NGO hasn't paid attention to community structures, it's likely that their approach won't reflect the local context. The project might not consider how people see themselves and their culture and might not reflect their values or what they need. There are so many reasons for people taking this top down approach, sometimes decision makers are located too far away from their target communities. Sometimes the staff implementing the project don't feel they have the time or the local networks to be able to engage effectively with communities.

Other times, it simply doesn't occur to project staff to engage with community members. Maybe they think that people don't have the right technical knowledge to understand the work that they're doing. Yet other times, top down just feels easier like the safer option because there are fewer risks of things going pear shaped, because there are fewer people to manage.

Now, the reasons might be understandable, but the results tend to be the same. The project is designed and implemented by the organization that owns the project that controls the resources. There's little to no sense of local ownership over the project which is happening in the community. And this means that there's little to no chance of the project being sustainable after project funding finishes unless new funding is brought in to take its place. Now let's consider the opposite. Bottom-Up approaches approaches that are purely Bottom-Up or initiatives or projects they instigated and led locally.

For example, a community group might decide they need to deal with a particular issue through discussing with each other and combining their resources. They come up with an approach that they think might work. Maybe their efforts are led by a local organization, or maybe it's more informal than that. And they just a group of concerned citizens. Regardless in this bottom up approach, it's the locals who are responsible for defining the problem from their perspective. They're also responsible for designing and implementing it in their community, using their local knowledge and networks to engage the right people and to get local support.

Now you can see that using this community led project, whatever they decide to do will reflect the problem as they see it as community members, which also makes it designed for their context, pretty different to top down. Right now, many people argue that the bottom up approach is much better than the top down approach.

Community development workers in particular tend to prefer this approach because often they spend a lot of time in the community. They might even live in the community so they can work closely with the community in facilitating the process. But I also don't want to romanticize the bottom up approach. There are important limitations to be aware of. One important limitation is that the work tends to be specific to that particular community. There's no obvious way of scaling the project in a range of communities because a pure bottom up approach means that the community decides for themselves what's important.

Another important limitation is it is probably not the right approach if the root cause of the problem isn't in the community itself, the problem might be with government service providers. For example, in these situations, community led initiatives might be able to address symptoms of the problems, but not the root cause. For example, if government service providers need to become more effective in meeting community needs, the community could be more mobilized to become more vocal with their government and push for change.

But if the problems are simply that the government doesn't have the capacity or the knowledge or the resources to provide these services, well, it's also important to work higher up the chain with government service providers themselves. Another important limitation is perhaps obvious, but it's often overlooked. Communities aren't always right. A pure bottom up approach might be wrong, for example, if cultural practices go against people's human rights. So, for example, in communities where there's honor killing, so killing of women and girls who damage family on it by having sex outside my marriage, if that's an accepted practice in that culture, community members who support the practice might not want to change it.

You'd need to find particular sectors of the community who are actively working against it and look at how you could support them. But this would probably also need to be complemented with other approaches, such as providing safe refuge for those women and girls, which would likely involve some top down elements, some elements which are external to the community. And finally, community members themselves might feel so disempowered that even though they agree it's a problem, they might not believe they can do anything about it.

In these cases, simply waiting for community members to come up with their own solutions probably won't work. You need to take a more active role. So you see there is no magical solution. Top down development clearly has problems, but bottom up development also doesn't hold the whole land. There are also some important limitations that we need to find a middle path that allows us to incorporate some of the positive aspects of both. Next lesson. We'll explore how it is that we arrived at this binary of top down and bottom up development as though these are the only two approaches, and then we'll consider some alternate approaches that we can apply in our work.

So let's review what we learned in this training video. First, we looked at what top down development looks like, the people who tend to lead the process and what this means for project sustainability at the local level. Second, we looked at purely Bottom-Up approaches and we also considered some important limitations in this approach. And finally, we considered the need to take a middle path which incorporates positive elements of both. Thanks for joining me. Next up, we'll continue looking at top down and bottom up development.

Principles2.mp3

Principles 2.mp3 - powered by Happy Scribe

Welcome back to listen to of principles of good local development costs. So let's take a look at what you'll learn in this training video. First, we'll look at what typically characterizes top down development. Next, we'll talk about a different way of working, using a bottom up approach. And third, we'll consider some of the benefits and also some important limitations of each of these approaches. We all come to this work wanting to make a positive difference in people's lives.

But as we get going in the work, very often there's a big reality check as we discover the many different obstacles that are impeding change. Politics gets in the way. There are logistical challenges of working in complex, sometimes extremely challenging environments and sometimes as well, it seems that the structures that we're working with, the funding structures, the project structures, don't support meaningful change at the local level. It's frustrating. And I think because of this frustration, there's often a tendency to place blame elsewhere.

Diners blame local NGOs, local NGOs blame international NGOs. But throughout this course, I want to encourage you to move away from this blame game and instead to look at the overarching dynamics that form the industry that we're working with. And a good place to start is to consider the difference between top down and bottom up development.

Now, you've probably heard these terms before, but let's get our definitions straight before we go any further. By top down approaches, what people generally mean is that the organizations that introduce a project to communities may be a donor or an international NGO identify a problem they want to address. Maybe it's extreme poverty or poor nutrition or gender based violence. Then they design a program or a set of solutions to address that problem. Most of this work generally happens in their office, far removed from the communities where it will be implemented.

Then they introduce this beautifully designed project to the local level. Now, this, of course, is a short summarized version of what actually happens. Project design is a lot more complicated than this.

But what I want you to focus on here is that the top down model comes entirely from the donor or the NGO that's designing and implementing the project.

In this approach, community members have no real involvement. The role is pretty much limited to receiving what's being given and hopefully being grateful for it. Very clear top down approaches can be seen, for example, in types of humanitarian aid, the short term support that's given in emergency situations such as wars or natural disasters because of the fast paced nature of humanitarian aid in the sometimes very dangerous working environment. It's not uncommon for project designers and managers to work from their offices, maybe in New York or Geneva or London, managing the project remotely.

In this way of working, there's very little reflection of the local context and no real opportunity for community members to get involved unless the donor or the NGO decides to employ some locals to run the project. And if the donor or NGO hasn't paid attention to community structures, it's likely that their approach won't reflect the local context. The project might not consider how people see themselves and their culture and might not reflect their values or what they need. There are so many reasons for people taking this top down approach, sometimes decision makers are located too far away from their target communities.

Sometimes the staff implementing the project don't feel they have the time or the local networks to be able to engage effectively with communities. Other times, it simply doesn't occur to project staff to engage with community members. Maybe they think that people don't have the right technical knowledge to understand the work that they're doing. Yet other times, top down just feels easier like the safer option because there are fewer risks of things going pear shaped, because there are fewer people to manage.

Now, the reasons might be understandable, but the results tend to be the same. The project is designed and implemented by the organization that owns the project that controls the resources. There's little to no sense of local ownership over the project which is happening in the community. And this means that there's little to no chance of the project being sustainable after project funding finishes unless new funding is brought in to take its place. Now let's consider the opposite. Bottom-Up approaches approaches that are purely Bottom-Up or initiatives or projects they instigated and led locally.

For example, a community group might decide they need to deal with a particular issue through discussing with each other and combining their resources. They come up with an approach that they think might work. Maybe their efforts are led by a local organization, or maybe it's more informal than that. And they just a group of concerned citizens. Regardless in this bottom up approach, it's the locals who are responsible for defining the problem from their perspective. They're also responsible for designing and implementing it in their community, using their local knowledge and networks to engage the right people and to get local support.

Now you can see that using this community led project, whatever they decide to do will reflect the problem as they see it as community members, which also makes it designed for their context, pretty different to top down. Right now, many people argue that the bottom up approach is much better than the top down approach.

Community development workers in particular tend to prefer this approach because often they spend a lot of time in the community. They might even live in the community so they can work closely with the community in facilitating the process. But I also don't want to romanticize the bottom up approach. There are important limitations to be aware of. One important limitation is that the work tends to be specific to that particular community. There's no obvious way of scaling the project in a range of communities because a pure bottom up approach means that the community decides for themselves what's important.

Another important limitation is it is probably not the right approach if the root cause of the problem isn't in the community itself, the problem might be with government service providers. For example, in these situations, community led initiatives might be able to address symptoms of the problems, but not the root cause. For example, if government service providers need to become more effective in meeting community needs, the community could be more mobilized to become more vocal with their government and push for change.

But if the problems are simply that the government doesn't have the capacity or the knowledge or the resources to provide these services, well, it's also important to work higher up the chain with government service providers themselves. Another important limitation is perhaps obvious, but it's often overlooked. Communities aren't always right. A pure bottom up approach might be wrong, for example, if cultural practices go against people's human rights. So, for example, in communities where there is honor killing, so killing of women and girls who damage family honor by having sex outside my marriage, if that's an accepted practice in that culture, community members who support the practice might not want to change it.

You'd need to find particular sectors of the community who are actively working against it and look at how you could support them. But this would probably also need to be complemented with other approaches, such as providing safe refuge for those women and girls, which would likely involve some top down elements, some elements which are external to the community. And finally, community members themselves might feel so disempowered that even though they agree it's a problem, they might not believe they can do anything about it.

In these cases, simply waiting for community members to come up with their own solutions probably won't work. You need to take a more active role. So you see there is no magical solution. Top down development clearly has problems, but bottom up development also doesn't hold the whole answer. There are also some important limitations that we need to find a middle path that allows us to incorporate some of the positive aspects of both. Next lesson, we'll explore how it is that we arrived at this binary of top down and bottom up development as though these are the only two approaches, and then we'll consider some alternate approaches that we can apply in our work.

So let's review what we learned in this training video. First, we looked at what top down development looks like, the people who tend to lead the process and what this means for project sustainability at the local level. Second, we looked at purely Bottom-Up approaches, and we also considered some important limitations in this approach. And finally, we considered the need to take a middle path which incorporates positive elements of both. Thanks for joining me. Next up, we'll continue looking at top down and bottom up development.