COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN AN UNCERTAIN WORLD VISTON, ANALYSIS AND PRACTICE JIM IFECommunity Development in an Uncertain World Vision, analysis and practice Community Development in an Uncertain World provides a comprehensive and lively introduction to modern community development. The book explores the interrelated frameworks of social justice, ecological responsibility and post-Enlightenment thinking, drawing on various sources including the wisdom of Indigenous peoples, Recognising the increasing complexity and uncertainty of the times in which we live, Jim Ife promotes a holistic approach to community development and emphasises the different dimensions of human community: social, economic, political, cultural, environmental, spiritual, personal and survival ‘The first section of the book examines the major theories and concepts that underpin community development. This includes a discussion of core principles: change and wisdom ‘from below’, the importance of process and valuing diversity. The second section focuses on practical elements, such as community work roles and essential skills. The final chapters discuss the problematic context of much contemporary practice and offer vision and hope for the future. Written in Jim Ife’s characteristic engaging and accessible style, Community Development in an Uncertain World is an essential resource for students and practitioners — now more than ever. Emeritus Professor Jim Ife holds adjunct positions at the Centre for Human Rights Education at Curtin University, Perth, at the Centre for Citizenship and Human Rights at Deakin University, and at Victoria University, Melbourne.Community Development in an Uncertain World Vision, analysis and practice Jim Ife CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESSCAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, So Paulo, Delhi, Mexico City Cambridge University Press 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107628496 © Cambridge University Press 2013 This publication is copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published by Pearson Education as Community Development in 1995 Second edition 2002 First published by Cambridge University Press as Community Development in an Uncertain World in 2013 Cover design by Marianna Berek-Lewis Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt Ltd Printed in China by Print Plus Ltd A catalogue record for this publication ts available from the British Library A Cataloguing-in-Publication entry is available from the catalogue of the National Library of Australia at www nla,gov.au ISBN 978-1-107-62849-6 Paperback Reproduction and communication for educational purposes ‘The Australian Copyright Act 1968 (the Act) allows a maximum of one chapter or 10% of the pages of this work, whichever is the greater, to be reproduced and/or communicated by any educational institution for its educational purposes provided that the educational institution (or the body that administers if) has given a remuneration notice to Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) under the Act. For details of the CAL licence for educational institutions contact: Copyright Agency LimitedLevel 15, 233 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 Telephone: (02) 9394 7600 Facsimile: (02) 9394 7601 E-mail: info@copyright.com.au Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.Contents List of figures and tables Acknowledgements Introduction 1 The crisis in human services and the need for community ‘The crisis in the welfare state and the emergence of neo-liberalism Away forward Commumity-based services as an alternative ‘The missing ingredient: community devel opment ‘The next steps 2 Foundations of commumity development: An ecological perspective Crisis Environmental responses and Green responses ‘Themes within Green analysis An ecological perspective An ecological perspective: is it enough? 3 Foundations of community development: A social justice perspective Approaches to disadvantage: the limitations of social policy Empowerment Need Rights 4 Foundations of community development: Beyond Enlightenment modernity ‘The Enlightenment Beyond the Enlightenment Indigenous understandings Conclusion 5 A vision for community devel opment Why each perspective is insufficient unless informed by the others ‘The promise of integration Community Development Community-based human services An alternative vision: grounds for hope 6 Change from below Valuing local knowledge Valuing local culture Valuing local resources Valuing local skills Valuing local processes Working in solidarity Ideological and theoretical foundations for change from below Conclusion 7 The process of commmity devel opment8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Process and outcome ‘The integrity of process Consciousness-raising Participatory democracy Cooperation ‘The pace of development Peace and non-violence Consensus Commumity-buil ding Conclusion ‘The global and the local Globalisation Localisation Protest Global and local practice Universal and contextual issues Colonialism, colonialist practice and working internationally Guarding against colonialist practice Working internationally Community devel opment: Social, economic and political Social development Economic development Political devel opment Community devel opment: Cultural, environmental, spiritual, personal and survival Cultural devel opment Environmental development Spiritual development Personal devel opment Survival development Balanced development Principles of community development and their application to practice Foundational principles Principles of valuing the local Process principles Global and local principles Conclusion Roles and skills 1: Facilitative and educational With head, heart, hand and feet ‘The problem with ‘cookbooks* Competencies Practice, theory, reflection and praxis ‘The language of roles Facilitative roles and skills Educational roles and skills Roles and skills 2: Representational and technical15 16 Refer Index Representational roles and skills Technical roles and skills ‘Two special cases: needs assessment and evaluation Demystifying skills ‘The organisational context Managerialism Responding to managerialism: community development as subversive Introducing community devel opment processes: the power of the collective Conclusion Practice issues Practice frameworks Categories of community worker Values and ethics Professionalism Education and training ‘The use and abuse of power Internal and external community work Long-term commitment Support Passion, vision and hope encesFigures and tables Figure 5.1. The vision of community devel opment Figure 10.1 Integrated community development Figure 10.2 Social devel opment Figure 10.3 Community economic development Figure 10.4 Political development Figure 11.1 Cultural development Figure 13.1 Commumity work practice roles Figure 16.1 A framework for community workers Table 2.1 Schools of Green thought Table 2.2 An ecological perspective Table 3.1 Accounts of social issues Table 3.2 Perspectives on power Table 3.3. Empowerment Table 3.4 Types of need statements Table 16.1 Categories of community workersAcknowledgements ‘The ideas represented in a book like this have many sources, and it is impossible to acknowledge — or even remember — them all. I have never been comfortable with the idea of ‘intellectual property’, as ideas can never be owned, but are shared, and are constantly being reconstructed in dialogue with a wide range of people. This book has been influenced by a large number of colleagues, friends, students, community workers, activists and authors at various times stretching back over more than 40 years of involvement with community work. I began working on the first edition of this book some 20 years before the publication of this fifth edition, so there have been many influences on its ongoing development. The book has been an evolving project, and many people have, knowingly or otherwise, contributed to it along the way. ‘There are some people who have contributed significantly to this book, and who need special acknowledgement. First, my wife, Dr Sonia Tascon, has been a continuing source of support and inspiration at both a personal and an intellectual level; I owe her a tremendous debt, and her presence in this bookis strong. It is important to acknowledge Dr Frank Tesoriero, who took over the third and fourth editions of this book while my academic and practice interests moved more into the field of human rights. I am grateful to him for undertaking this work, and also feel a sense of sadness that circumstances have dictated that he can no longer be involved with the project. It is important to point out that this edition contains only material from the first and second editions (for which I was the sole author) together with substantial additions and alterations I have made to bring it up to date. It contains none of the material that Frank added in the third and fourth editions, and hence it is published with my name as the sole author. I am also gratefull to the many colleagues throughout Australia and overseas who encouraged me to take up this project again and to commit to a new edition. Other people I wish to acknowledge, whose influence on the early editions and/or on the present edition has been particularly important, are, in alphabetical order, Jacques Boulet, Linda Briskman, Ingrid Burkett, Love Chile, Phil Comors, Jo Dillon, Wendy Earles, Erica Faith, Lucy Fiske, Vic George, Amanda Hope, Adam Jamrozik, Sue Kenny, Nola Kunnen, Mary Lane, Louise Morley, Robyn Munford, Rob Nabben, Jean Panet Raymond, Stuart Rees, Gavin Rennie, Monica Romeo, Dyann Ross, Rodney Routledge, Evelyn Serrano, Pat Shannon, Joanne Stone, David Woodsworth and Susan Young. The section in chapter 4, on Indigenous contributions to community development, was read by Auntie Sue Blacklock, Gillian Bonser, Carmen Daniels, Paula Hayden, Helen Lynes and Cheryl Kickett Tucker, who provided important feedback. Their contribution is particularly valued. I wish also to acknowledge the generosity of students and colleagues at the University of Western Australia, Curtin University, and Victoria University (Melbourne), who over the years have sharedideas and helped to create enriching climates to explore issues of community development. Beyond the traditional university, Borderlands Cooperative is a special place of shared scholarship, learning and activism, with a wonderful community development library, which has provided me with a particularly stimulating environment in which to develop ideas for this edition. Earlier editions were particularly influenced by friends and colleagues at the Greens (WA), Amnesty International and the International Federation of Social Workers. ‘This edition is published by a different publisher, and I am gratefill to Pearson Education for their generosity in releasing the copyright of the first two editions so that they could be incorporated in this new edition. I am also grateful to Isabella Mead, publisher at Cambridge University Press, for her enthusiasm for the project, and her support throughout the process. My association with Cambridge University Press goes back over 15 years now, and it has been a very professional, positive and trouble-free relationship that I have come to value highly. Finally, this book is dedicated to my grandchildren, Ben, Emma, Joe, Hamish and Phoebe. It is, I hope, a small contribution towards creating a better future for them and for all those who will inherit the world that my generation has so comprehensively trashed and stripped of its communitarian traditions. Jim Ife Melbourne, 2013Introduction Despite the formidable achievements of modern, Western, industrialised society, it has become clear that the current social, economic and political order has been unable to meet two of the most basic prerequisites for human civilisation: the need for people to be able to live in harmony with their environment, and the need for them to be able to live in harmony with each other. If these two needs cannot be met, in the long term, the achievements and benefits of modern society will be transitory. The inability of the dominant order to meet these needs can be seen in the crises currently facing not only Western industrialised societies but all societies. The world is characterised by increasing instability — whether ecological, economic, political, social or cultural — and existing institutions seem only able to provide solutions which in the long term, and even in the short term, only make things worse. Those were the words that introduced the first edition of this book, published in 1995. Eighteen years on, they are as true today as they were then, if not more so, and the justification for this book remains the same. Many things have changed in those 18 years, but the above paragraphs also remind us that many things — the most important things — have not. The world is still on a course that is headed for major crises — environmental, economic, social and political — and despite the fact that many more people are now aware of, and concerned about, the parlous state of the world and its very uncertain future, governments are still showing themselves unwilling or unable (or both) to do anything significant about it. There have been great disappointments in those 18 years: the failure of the Copenhagen summit on climate change in 2009, the inability to respond to the Global Financial Crisis in any way except by bailing out the banks and propping up global capital, the resulting austerity measures, the draconian response to the threat of terrorism since ‘9/11°, which has served only to heighten global tensions and make a terrorist response more likely, ongoing tension and conflict in the Middle East, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as continuing conflicts in parts of Affica, the widening gap between the increasingly wealthy global elite and the rest of the world, the inability to meet the modest Millennium Development Goals, the hardening of attitudes towards refugees and asylum seekers, the emergence of right-wing and racist political groups in many countries. These suggest that the current structures of national and global government are utterly unable to meet the pressing global problems that threaten the future of human civilisation. The words that immediately followed the above 1995 passage — ‘In this context, the need for alternative ways of doing things becomes critical’ — now seem almost an understatement. There are, however, signs of hope. The continuing demonstrations against globalisation, culminating in the Occupy movement of 2011, suggest that there are many people who are seeking an alternative. The widespread disillusionment with mainstream political parties, caused by the perceived irrelevance of mainstream politics and meaningless elections that fail to address many ofthe major issues facing the world, can also lead to people seeking a new form of politics, although it is yet unclear how this will evolve. Social media and the internet have made possible the documentation of human rights abuses and the mobilisation of opposition in the so-called Arab Spring and in other protest movements. Campaigning groups such as GefUp! and Avaaz have successfully mobilised large numbers of concerned people to oppose oppressive legislation or to struggle for environmental and social justice, Latin American social movements and progressive governments have been developing inspiring commmmity-based alternatives: the Zapatistas in Mexico, the community response to the oil crisis in Cuba, the popular governments of Chavez in Venezuela and Morales in Bolivia, the education demonstrations in Chile, the ‘horizontalidad’ movement in Argentina. Despite their inevitable problems, facing the hostility of global capital and conservative media interests, these represent bold initiatives towards an alternative future that are an inspiration to the world. It is in this context, both of impending crisis and of new signs of hope, that commmnity development can play a crucial role. There has been increasing interest in development at the community level as potentially providing a more viable and sustainable basis for the meeting of human need and for interaction with the environment, and it is not surprising that the Latin American examples above all include a strong component of alternative commmity development. Among activists concerned with both environmental and social justice issues, the establishment of viable community-based structures has become a key component of strategies for change. Community development represents a vision of how things might be organised differently, so that genuine ecological sustainability and social justice, which seem unachievable at global or national levels, can be realised in the experience of human community. This book represents an attempt to articulate that vision, and to provide a theoretical framework for commmmity development that will relate analysis, context and action. In the years since the first edition, the organisational context of practice, dominated by managerialism, has become less conducive to good community development, as discussed in chapter 15, but nevertheless the need for, and the continuing interest in, community development remains strong, This is particularly so among those concerned for social justice and ecological sustainability, as community development is seen as a potential alternative way to organise human society; if indeed there are to be economic, political and ecological crises, as now seems inevitable, it will be our ability to work at community level that will determine the capacity of human civilisation to survive. However, the interest in community development is also driven by a belief that human community is important, and that strong communities will enrich our lives and provide a positive context for human interaction and for the meeting of human need, especially given the continuing erosion of the welfare state. ‘This ongoing interest in community devel opment is shown by reaction to the earlier editions of this book, which have had a wider appeal than first imagined. This wider appeal has been evident in two directions. One is the embracing of community devel opment by a wide range of occupational groups, not merely the human-service professionals and community activists that one might expect, and who were implicitly the readership for which the first edition was intended, I have discovered a muchbroader range of occupational and interest groups who feel that community development is important in their work, and this has underscored the power of the comnumity development perspective. The other is the way the book has been found usefull in different cultural contexts. Although the book is written from the perspective of a white Australian male, earlier editions have resonated with workers in different cultures, and it has been translated into several different languages. This inevitably raises questions about colonialism, a topic that is covered in chapter 9, but it also emphasises that the concerns of community devel opment are universal, and many of the broad principles discussed in this book (such as wisdom from below, the importance of process, interdependence, participation, empowerment and so on) apply across cultural boundaries, although the way they are constructed and applied will differ significantly in different contexts. For readers familiar with earlier editions, it is important to outline some history of this publication to avoid any confusion as to authorship. This is the fifth edition of this book, although it is the first to be published by Cambridge University Press. Iwas the sole author of the first two editions (1995 and 2002), but the third and fourth editions were prepared by Dr Frank Tesoriero; our names appeared as joint authors for the third edition (2006), and he was the sole named author of the fourth edition (2010), although much of the content was continued from the earlier versions. Sadly, Frank is no longer associated with the project, and this current edition contains none of the material he added for the third and fourth editions. It does contain material written for the first two editions, together with a good deal of new material; there are 16 chapters, compared with 11 in the first edition and 12 in the second. However, the overall trajectory of the book remains the same. ‘The first five chapters lay the foundation for a vision of community development, Chapter 1 examines the crisis of modern Western societies and the crisis of the welfare state, and argues the need for community development. Chapter 2 explores the ecological crisis and its imperatives, in the light of Green political theory, developing an ecological perspective for community development. Chapter 3 outlines a social justice perspective, including discussion of rights, needs, equity, justice, empowerment and so on. It explores issues of class, gender and race/ethnicity from both structural and poststructural perspectives. Chapter 4 outlines elements of a post-Enlightenment position, including ideas of postmodernism and relational reality. A particularly important section of this chapter discusses Indigenous cultures, and the significant contributions they can make to community development, Chapter 5 then seeks to integrate the perspectives of the previous three chapters, in a vision for community development and for community-based human services. ‘The next two chapters explore two significant principles of community development. Chapter 6 is concerned with change from below, valuing the wisdom, expertise and skills of the commmity, and the importance of decentralisation and community control. Chapter 7 discusses the processes of community development, including the primacy of process over outcomes, and the issues of participation, democracy, consciousness-raising, peace and non-violence. Chapters 8 and 9 outline a more global, or international, perspective. Chapter 8 is concerned with globalisation and understanding commmity development in a globalising world, while chapter 9 explores the important issue of colonialism, which can affect all community development practice,and considers issues around working internationally. Chapters 10 and11 outline eight dimensions of commmity development: social, economic, political, cultural, environmental, spiritual, personal and survival. Practice in each of these eight areas is discussed, with various issues identified in relation to each. The approach taken is one that emphasises the importance of all eight, in a holistic and integrated understanding of what community development means Chapter 12 seeks to summarise the ideas of previous chapters in a series of practice principles. ‘There are 30 principles discussed altogether and, although there is little in this chapter that has not been covered in previous chapters, readers have found such a summary at this point to be particularly usefill as a way of encapsulating the principles of community devel opment. ‘The remaining chapters are concerned with issues of practice. Chapters 13 and14 discuss the various roles taken by community workers, and identify the skills needed to fill those roles. In doing so they discuss issues of practice/theory, the problems with prescriptive ‘cookbooks’, and the ways in which community workers can develop their skills. Chapter 15 is concerned with the managerial environment in which many community workers have to practice, and which is hostile to community development principles. It outlines some approaches community workers can use either to adapt to, or to directly challenge, managerialism. Chapter 16 discusses a number of other issues relating to practice, such as professionalism, value conflicts, ethics, support for workers and so on. ‘The book moves, in a general way, from more theoretical to more practical considerations, but it is far from a simple linear development. Indeed, part of the discussion in the earlier chapters emphasises the need to reject linear thinking, so the reader is encouraged to ‘jump around’ and not necessarily read the book in the order in which it is written, The book does attempt to follow a logical sequence, but there are other equally valid logical sequences that could have resulted in a very different order of the material. Although I have attempted to make the ideas accessible to a wide readership, it has been necessary to make some assumptions about the background of those for whom the book is written. I have assumed that the reader has some familiarity with basic social and political ideas, such as social class, power, the division of labour, Marxism, feminism, socialism and so on. This is not to say that detailed or expert knowledge of such topics is necessary; completion of first-year university study in sociology, anthropology, politics or some other social science discipline, or alternatively a comparable understanding gained from general reading, should provide the reader with a more than adequate background. Ihave updated the references to incorporate contemporary sources; a lot has been written since 1995. However, I have also included a number of older sources for the earlier editions where I believe they have something important to say. In this age when the ‘here and now’ is so valued, and where history is often marginalised, it is important that we challenge this by listening to the voices ofthe past as well as the present, and there is much of value to community development in earlier literature. ‘This book makes frequent use of a number of terms that have been grossly overused and misused in recent years, such as community, empowerment, development, sustainable, ecological, Green, social justice, community-based, holistic, participation, consciousness-raising, non-violence, and participatory democracy. Although these terms have been overused, they still represent powerful ideas; indeed, their very popularity is a testament to their power and their perceived relevance. They have an important contribution to make to the vision and the practice principles of this book the aim of the book is to clarify rather than obscure these ideas, and to reinvest them with some substantive meaning for community workers. Throughout the book, the terms community development andcommunity work have slightly different meanings. I have used the former to refer to the processes of developing community structures, while the latter refers to the actual practice of a person (whether paid or unpaid) who is consciously working to facilitate or achieve such development. Ihave opted for the most part to use the terms the South and the North rather than developing nations, Third World or other similar terms and their opposites. None is wholly satisfactory, and living in Australia the South offends one’s geographical consciousness but, as in other ways it is the least offensive term, it is the one I have chosen. The term Western (or the West) similarly takes liberties with geographical principles, particularly for an Australian. The term is nonetheless a useful one, and in the context of this book it refers primarily to Western culture, whereas the terms North and South are used more in an economic context; of course the distinction is not always clear-cut, as economics and culture are themselves inextricably entwined. It should, however, be noted that there is no necessary single antithesis of Western in cultural terms, whereas the economic constructs of the North and the South are not only opposites but also in such a structural relationship that neither could exist without the other, and each serves to define the other. Ihave used the term Aotearoa rather than New Zealand, as a deliberate political and cultural statement; I only wish that Australia had a similarly accepted Indigenous name Throughout the book there are a number of tables and diagrams that illustrate in summary form the ideas discussed in the text, culminating in figure 16.1 (see page 366), which ambitiously attempts to summarise the entire framework. They are included with mixed feelings: several readers have commented that such tables and diagrams are helpful in obtaining an overview and in seeing how the material fits together, but this needs to be balanced against the dangers of categorisation and oversimplification. Tables and diagrams can have the effect of imposing a false sense of order on a complex and chaotic reality and, hence, of inviting simplistic solutions to complex problems. To represent complex concepts by a few words in a cell of a table is to change the very nature of the content itself, and invites a dangerous reductionism. A too-rigid interpretation of such tables is antithetical to the holistic approach advocated in the early chapters, and the reader is cautioned to remember that the boundaries of the tables do not represent rigid distinctions or impermeable barriers. If the tables and diagrams are regarded as an aid to comprehension but not as rigidcategorisations or definitions, they will have served their purpose. While this book has a practical application, and attempts to incorporate both theory and practice, it does not provide simple prescriptions of how to ‘do’ community work. The reasons for rejecting such an approach are given in chapter 13. A number of principles of practice are outlined, but the way in which they are translated into practice reality will vary from community to comity, and from worker to worker. Commmity work is, at heart, a creative exercise, and it is impossible to prescribe creativity. Rather, one can establish theoretical understandings, a sense of vision and an examination of the nature of practice, in the hope that this will stimulate a positive, informed, creative, critical and reflective approach to community work. That is the aim of this book1 The crisis in human services and the need for community ‘There is no clear agreement on the nature of the activity described as community work. Some see it as a profession; some see it as one aspect of some other profession or occupation such as social work or youth work, some see it as anti-professional; some see it as people coming together to improve their neighbourhood; some see it in more ambitious terms, of righting social injustice and trying to make the world a better place; some see it in terms of social action and conflict; some see it in terms of solidarity, cohesion and consensus; some see it as inherently radical; some see it as inherently conservative; and so on (Butcher et al. 2007, Chile 2007b, Kenny 2010, Ledwith 2005, Craig, Popple & Shaw 2008). Not only do people's understandings of community work differ but also the terminology is similarly confused, The terms community work, community development, community organisation, community action, community capacity-building, community enterprise, community practice andcommunity change are all commonly used, often interchangeably, and although many would claim that there are important differences between some or all of these terms, there is no agreement as to what these differences are, and no clear consensus as to the different shades of meaning that each implies. There is similar confusion about the idea of community-based human services. The term comiaunity-based is used in a variety of contexts, and often has little substantive meaning beyond a vague indication that the service concerned is somewhat removed from the conventional bureaucratic mode. There is, however, considerable interest in the development of a community-based approach to the delivery of human services such as health, education, housing, justice, childcare, income security and personal welfare, and a belief that this represents an important improvement over the current mix of welfare state and private market (De Young & Princen 2012, Clark & Teachout 2012). This book is an attempt to make sense of community work and community-based services. It is based on the premise that the main reason for much of the confuusion, and the seeming inadequacy of what passes for community work ‘theory’, is that community work has often not been adequately located in its social, political and ecological context, or linked to a clearly articulated social vision, in such a way that the analysis relates to action and ‘real-life’ practice. Many of the stated principles of practice are fragmentary and context-free, and often the goals of commmmity work remain vague, uncharted and contradictory. Similarly, the literature on community-based services is often rhetorical rather than substantive, and often does not relate specifically to relevant social and political theory. ‘This book attempts to remedy that deficiency. It seeks to locate community work and community- based services within a broader context of an approach to community development. This latter term is seen as the process of establishing, or re-establishing, structures of human community within which new, or sometimes old but forgotten, ways of relating, organising social life and meeting human need become possible. In this context, community work is seen as the activity, or practice, of a person who seeks to facilitate that process of commumity development, whether or not that person is actually paid for filling that role, Community-based services are seen as structures and processes for meeting human need, drawing on the resources, expertise and wisdom of the community itself‘The starting point for this exploration will be the crisis in the contemporary welfare state and the emergence of neo-liberalism, alongside the recurring interest in developing some form of “community-based? alternative. It is from examining the shortcomings of many attempts to move to a community-based model, and the identification of what is missing from these attempts, that the vision ofa more viable alternative can begin to emerge. The crisis in the welfare state and the emergence of neo-liberalism Contemporary community work must be seen within the context of the crisis in the welfare state, and the erosion of government and popular support for continued growth in welfare state provision. The crisis in the welfare state became evident in the 1980s, as the ‘new Right” ideology and economic theory of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher began to influence government policy and public opinion. This was the beginning of the era of neo-liberalism, an ideology that had its origins in the philosophy of Friedrich Hayek and the economic theory of Milton Friedman, emphasising the primacy of individual freedom and the superiority of the private market as the best way to allocate wealth and resources. In such a world view, public, or state, provision plays a secondary role, and indeed should be reduced to a minimum. The belief in the superiority of the unregulated market and private initiative leaves little room for the state. This ideology challenged the previous ‘postwar consensus’, which defined a central role for government in the meeting of human need and the creation of a fairer society. This earlier view was exemplified by the Beveridge Report in Britain, which laid the foundation for the postwar British welfare state, and the social policy writing of Richard Titmuss and T-H. Marshall. Similarly Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ in the USA in the 1930s had identified a strong role for government in lifting the nation out of economic depression, Welfare states were also established in most European countries following World War IL, and in other so-called developed nations (such as Canada, Australia and Aotearoa) whose economies were able to afford significant public expenditure on the provision of health, education, housing, income security and personal services. These welfare states took different forms — some were more extensive and well developed than others, and some were more dependent on a social insurance model — but they all accepted the notion that a major role of government was to provide for the needs ofits citizens. This view was challenged by neo-liberalism, which emphasised the importance of individual responsibility rather than state provision, and saw government’s role as to support the market and to “get out of people’s lives’ (Harvey 2005, Saad-Filho & Johnston 2005, Honeywill 2006, Beder 2006, Beck 2012, Kempf 2009, Panitch & Gindin 2012). Under neo-liberalism, the termnanny state became a popular epithet for the criticism of the idea of a welfare state, and government expenditure moved from being seen as positive, enhancing the common good, to being seen in negative terms as a drain on the productive economy; governments were elected on promises to do less rather than more, and to reduce taxes rather than to expand services. In this context, it has become common for many commentators to deride a ‘culture of entitlement’ and to encourage individual autonomy and ‘independence’ (we shall see in later chapters that ‘independence’ is a nonsense). With the end of theCold War around 1989, and the consequent delegitimising not only of communism as it had been manifest in the Soviet bloc but also of Marxism more generally, and even of socialism, there was no effective opposing ideology to capitalism, and so neo-liberalism — essentially an extreme form of unregulated capitalism — could reign supreme (Harvey 2005). This, of course, has exacerbated economic inequalities, as the welfare state and strong government regulation — mechanisms for reducing inequality and ensuring a reasonably equal sharing of available wealth and opportunity — were simply not available. Neo-liberalism, indeed, accepts inequality as both necessary and desirable, if economic growth and individual prosperity are to be maximised. Since the arrival of neo-liberalism as a mainstream ideology, it has become clear not only that the welfare state is unable to meet fully the needs of citizens but also that there is a strong belief among many political and opinion leaders that it should not attempt to do so, as this would reduce incentive and encourage ‘dependency’. But neo-liberalism is not alone in its criticism of the welfare state. There is now almost complete agreement about the inadequacy, instability and uncertainty of the contemporary welfare state and its apparent continuing inability to meet the full range of human needs. Even critics from the political Left have been forced to admit that a centralised welfare state is unable to meet all our social needs, and can be dehumanising and alienating because of its inhumane bureaucratic structures. One of the important characteristics of neo-liberalism is that its emergence coincided with, and embraced, globalisation. This became possible initially because of the increased availability of global travel and then with the coming of the computer age and the possibility of instant communication on a scale previously unimaginable, making possible new global networks of power (Castells 1996, 1997, 1998), Hence neo-liberalism became a global force, and the markets became globalised, and were thus beyond the capacity of national governments to regulate, even if they had wished to. Governments had to take careful note of the requirements and preferences of global markets, if they did not want to face sudden and dramatic withdrawal of capital and corresponding economic collapse. What became known as ‘globalisation’ was effectively the globalisation of the economy and of markets, together with a form of ‘cultural globalisation’ so that the purchasing choices of consumers became as similar as possible (e.g, in clothes, entertainment, food, cars, etc.) (Niezen 2004, Castells, Caraga & Cardoso 2012); it is easier to produce for a market if everybody wants to buy more or less the same things. We did not see a corresponding globalisation of social or environmental concerns. This difference is seen in the relative lack of mobility of labour as opposed to the instant mobility of capital, and the strength and power of those international mechanisms established to serve the global economy (e.g. the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization), compared with the weakness of international structures (through the United Nations or international NGOs) to achieve social justice or environmental sustainability at a global level (Beder 2006, Satz 2010). Globalisation will be discussed in more detail in chapter 8. ‘The effects of the crisis in the welfare state and the rise of neo-liberalism are clearly visible at the level of service delivery. Continuing cutbacks in public services, lowering of the quality of service as overburdened workers are urged to ‘do more with less’, longer waiting lists and waiting periods, lack of access to health care (except for those who can afford private insurance), the deterioration ofthe public education system, poor staff morale, and a general lack of confidence in the capacity of the public system to cope, are all familiar themes in many Western societies. Policy responses have tended to reflect neo-liberal orthodoxy, through privatisation, the creation of quasi-markets (e.g, in health care with different ‘providers’ competing with each other), the role of government as a purchaser of service rather than as a provider, and encouraging the private sector to be involved either through public/private ‘partnerships’ or through total privatisation and the principle of ‘user pays’. Other policy options, requiring increased taxation and spending, are simply unacceptable in the neo-liberal world. ‘The neo-liberal perspective is not always readily accepted by the people, as can be seen in the reactions of people in the European region to the ‘austerity measures” imposed on them by neo-liberal orthodoxy following the Global Financial Crisis (Castells, Caraga & Cardoso 2012). In this regard, the people of Europe are sharing the experience of the people of other regions, such as Latin America and Africa, who have had to face the hard edge of neo-liberal policies for decades (Klein 2007). Hence many governments feel powerless to address significant problems — from unemployment and substance abuse to climate change and land degradation — while still retaining some measure of popularity with voters. One consequence can be the substitution of public relations spin for policy, and several policy techniques have become depressingly familiar as strategies to give the impression that much is being achieved, One is the production of glossy publications full of rhetoric about ‘steps forward’, ‘new initiatives’, ‘social advantage’, ‘social dividend’, ‘equity and access’ and other high- minded goals. Another is an apparently perpetual succession of task forces, working parties, summits and commissions, which can take up a good deal of time while giving the impression that ‘something is being done’. A third is organisational restructuring, which is a time-honoured way of appearing to take ‘decisive action’. A fourth is the repackaging of already existing programs under new, catchy titles; publications about ‘family policy’, for example, are notorious in this regard. Thus, if one asks a government representative about the policy on a particularly problematic issue (e.g. domestic violence, youth homelessness or unemployment), one is likely to be handed a slick publication full of rhetoric, and to be told about a significant new task force that has been established to deal with the problem, within a newly restructured government department. Such responses have become apologies for genuine policy, and represent a tacit admission that many of the problems with which governments are required to deal are in fact insoluble within existing social, political and economic constraints. ‘The situation is indeed grim, with inadequate human services, rising inequality and a declining resource base, made worse by the economic instability now affecting or threatening most countries in the ‘developed’ West. Various alternatives have been proposed by those concerned for social justice, the three most common being: (1) seeking to defend and re-establish the welfare state, (2) moving towards a more ‘corporatist’ state, where a consensus is sought between the various interests such as capital and labour, and (3) a more radical socialist alternative with human need being given highest priority, bolstered by a strong regulatory state. Each of these has some advantages, but they also have significant drawbacks and seem to have little likelihood of success in the current social, economic and political context. Defenders of the welfare state have found it difficult to counter the criticism that large, centralisedbureaucratic structures, which seem to be an inevitable consequence of a traditional welfare state system, are neither effective nor efficient in the delivery of human services, and that they dehumanise, alienate and disempower those whom they purport to serve. In addition, the weak theoretical foundation of the social democratic approach to welfare (Taylor-Gooby & Dale 1981) has left the advocates of the welfare state open to attack from both the Right and the Leff; it can be argued that it was only in the era of the postwar consensus that the ideological foundations of the welfare state could remain intact, and this consensus has long gone. Corporatism is subject to significant criticism on the grounds that it represents an artificially manufactured compromise between essentially competing interests, such as capital and labour, so that at best it can be only a short-term and inevitably unstable arrangement. It can, perhaps, succeed only under certain specific economic and political conditions (e.g, relatively stable economic growth and prosperity), which cannot be expected to last indefinitely. Another criticism of the corporatist approach is that it requires trade-offs to be made at the level of peak organisations representing particular sectors of society and the economy. This militates against democratic or participatory forms of policy- and decision-making, and serves to reinforce the power of existing elites. ‘The socialist alternative, while arguably resting on a much stronger theoretical and intellectual base than the other approaches, also fails to take account of the alienating and dehumanising effects of state bureaucracies and central planning. Despite the rhetorical ideals of a truly socialist society, the imposition of communism in practice has been accompanied by extremely repressive measures. While it can be argued that this need not be the case, the experience makes it difficult for Marxists to gain significant legitimacy within contemporary social and political debate. As will be evident in the following discussion, a Marxist analysis has much to offer in developing an alternative, but the classical Marxist solution of state socialism does not seem a credible alternative at this time. ‘The problems of these responses have been exacerbated by the success of neo-liberal ideology in dominating public discourse. Neo-liberalism is presented as natural, and it is assumed that indeed there is no practical alternative. Thus it has come to be regarded by many people as the natural order of things, and the role of governments has been reduced to one of managing and supporting the capitalist system, rather than seeking alternatives. Government intervention in the market is assumed to be negative, hence any proactive government policy is viewed with a mixture of scepticism and alarm, as is only too clear to those who have so desperately sought government action to avert serious climate change. A way forward The above very complex issues deserve more thorough treatment than can be covered here. The purpose of this quick — and inevitably superficial — discussion is simply to highlight some of the specific objections to each of the three conventional responses to the crisis in the welfare state and the emergence of neo-liberalism. For the purposes of this book it is significant to concentrate on one overriding objection to all the above responses to the crisis, which can be summarised as follows:The crisis in the welfare state, and the tragedy of neo-liberalism, are the result of a wider crisis of a social, economic and political system which is unsustainable, which has reached a point of ecological crisis, and which is only exacerbated by the neo-liberal agenda. Each conventional response to the crisis in the welfare state and the emergence of neo-liberalism is itself based on the same unsustainable, growth-oriented assumptions, and is therefore itself unsustainable. This objection to the traditional policy responses to the crisis in the welfare state and to the emergence of neo-liberalism is the basis for the remainder of the book, which aims to develop an alternative approach to human service policy and practice that is more consistent with a truly sustainable society. Therefore it is appropriate to consider this objection in more detail. As Marxist writers have pointed out since the 1970s (e.g, O’Connor 1973, Offe 1984), the welfare state has grown alongside industrial capitalism, and must be seen as an integral part of the existing social, economic and political order. The state provision of such public services as health, education, housing and welfare has not been simply the result of altruistic views of benign and caring governments but has been necessary in order for industrial capitalism to grow and flourish, and as a means of establishing and maintaining social control. The Marxist analysis has been particularly significant in demonstrating this, and sees the welfare state as being in a symbiotic relationship with advanced capitalism: each is necessary for the other’s survival. Thus modern capitalism would not be possible without some form of welfare state in order to meet human need, to maintain stability and security and to keep the workforce healthy, happy and ‘appropriately’ educated so that the key processes of production and reproduction can be maintained (George & Wilding 1984). Such an analysis, which developed in the social policy literature of the 1970s and 1980s, before the fill emergence of neo-liberalism, means that the welfare state must be seen within the context of, and not as separate from, advanced capitalism, While capitalism, in its present form, cannot survive without some form of welfare state, the corollary is that the welfare state in its present form cannot survive without the industrial capitalist economic order within which it has developed. There is now ample evidence that this existing order is unsustainable, as the contradictions of the system (of which the contradictions of the welfare state are only a part) become more apparent (Homer-Dixon 2006, Castells, Caraga & Cardoso 2012). The system is based on continued growth, which is having disastrous effects on the global environment. As the ecological and human costs of continuing growth and ‘progress’ become more evident, and as the warnings that the global industrial and economic system is reaching the limits to growth are more clearly recognised (Shiva 2005), the urgency of the situation is highlighted. Western governments are finding it increasingly difficult to sustain economic development, standards of living and full employment (by whatever statistical artifice that is measured). The conventional economic solutions do not seem to work very well, and are at best short term. The inequities and limits of the global economic system, to which all Western economies are now inextricably linked, are becoming more apparent. Increasing numbers of economists and other commentators are reaching the conclusion that the major economic and social problems facing modern society can no longer be solved from within the existing system, and that a radical change is necessary —to a quite different society, based on different economic principles (Quiggin 2012, Ekins& Max-Neef 1992, Doorman 1998, Greco 2009, Boulet 2009, Honeywill 2006). This change would clearly include the welfare state. ‘The argument thus far is in many ways consistent with a Marxist analysis; indeed, Marx and his successors have clearly identified the contradictions of capitalism, and have similarly suggested the need for a radical reformulation, However, there is a findamental difference between the Marxist position and the alternative “Green” position on which this book is based. Marxists have still assumed that continuing economic growth, with a corresponding increase in productivity, wealth and personal income, is not only possible but also desirable (and, one might argue, necessary). In this they are in agreement with other ideological positions, including both neo-liberalism and social democracy. Itis common in elections to hear parties from many differing ideological positions, including the Leff, assuming that the way out of current economic problems is to step up economic growth and to argue about the best way this can be achieved, Over the years, in a remarkable case of language slippage, the idea of ‘sustainable development” coined in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987) has morphed first to ‘sustainable growth’, then in the Rio ‘Earth Summit’ of 2012 into ‘sustained growth’. An alternative ‘Green’ position, however, maintains that economic growth is at best a doubtful benefit, in that it causes more problems (including environmental, social and economic problems) than it solves. Indeed, in a finite world, it is clearly ludicrous to assume that growth can continue indefinitely, and there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the effective limits to growth are being reached (Hamilton 2003, De Young & Princen 2012). It is thus necessary to seek a system that breaks the cycle of growth and is not dependent on continuing growth for its maintenance (in contrast to the existing form of industrial capitalism, as well as the Marxist socialist alternative). This requires a genuinely ecological perspective incorporating a notion of sustainability, and this will be explored in chapter 2. It is worth noting, however, that in this context sustainability represents a more significant departure from existing practices than is implied by many contemporary politicians and public figures, given the current trend to justify virtually any policy under the now almost meaningless term ‘sustainable development’, or the blatantly self- contradictory ‘sustainable growth’. From this perspective, the crisis in the welfare state cannot be satisfactorily resolved using any of the four policy strategies outlined above. The existing growth-oriented social, economic and political system, within which the welfare state is located, is clearly unsustainable in anything other than a very short time span. The welfare state, certainly in the form to which we have become accustomed in the West, seems unlikely to last much longer, and as the structures of society change (as from the ecological perspective they nuist), different structures and services for the meeting of human need will have to be developed. This should not be a surprising conclusion: the modern welfare state, although its origins can be traced back several hundred years (de Schweinitz 1943), is essentially a creature of the twentieth century and of the affluent West. Throughout all but a hundred years of history the human species has been able to survive without the welfare state, and even in this hundred years its supposed benefits have been enjoyed by only a minority. The welfare state is not a permanent fixture, nor is it necessarily a natural component of human civilisation.Community-based services as an alternative ‘Throughout history, there have been different institutions and mechanisms for the meeting of human need. At different times and in different contexts the extended family, the tribe, the village, the Church, the market and the state have all been seen as playing critical roles in this process, often in combination. Each institution has had a dominant role in the meeting of need, yet as society has changed each has proven to be by itself inadequate for the needs of the new order, although each has retained a lesser role in subsequent times. The crisis in the welfare state is simply another of these historical transitions, where the nation state, for which such great hopes were held, is demonstrating its inadequacy as new forms of social, economic and political structures emerge. From this perspective it is inappropriate to put too much energy into defending or strengthening the welfare state. A more useful direction is to ask what might be an alternative form of social provision that would be consistent with the newly emerging social and economic order. Many of the policy prescriptions that enjoy contemporary popularity represent an attempt to reinstate some of the earlier forms of the meeting of need, principally through the market and the family. Historically, the limitations of both of these have become apparent, and are even more evident within the contemporary social and economic system, where the market is again proving its inadequacy to meet human need equitably, and where the family is under continuing pressure and is increasingly fragmented (Jamrozik & Sweeny 1996); there is a crisis in the institution of the contemporary family that renders it utterly incapable of meeting the demands of social care with which some seek to burden it. Within this context, there is an increasing interest in community-based programs as an alternative mode for the delivery of human services and the meeting of human need (Wheatley 2009, Wheatley & Frieze 2011, Ball 2011, Bauman 2001, Block 2009, De Young & Princen 2012, Clark & Teachout 2012). After the family, the Church, the market and the state, it may now be the turn of the ‘community’ to carry major responsibility for the provision of services in such fields as health, education, housing and welfare. The idea of commumity is a central theme in much of the Green literature (Hopkins 2008, Pahl 2007, Vanclay 2006, Harding 2011, Manzini 2011, Wheatley 2009), and at first sight it may seem that a community-based approach to human services is consistent with the idea of a ‘post-welfare state’ system based on principles of sustainability. Later chapters in this book will explore the potential of such a community-based approach as the next stage in service provision ‘beyond the welfare state’, and will discuss how such a system might operate and what it would mean for those ‘doing’ community work. As already noted, the terms community and community-based are highly problematic, and mean different things to different people. The approach to community work and commmmity-based services developed in this book is not necessarily consistent with the frequent usage of the terms in government policy discourse, where they have come to have as little substantive meaning as the word sustainable. Before outlining the community development approach on which this book is based, itis necessary first to identify some of the significant problems often associated with approaches to human services that are labelled ‘commmity-based’. Only then will it be possible to attempt to develop anapproach to community development that overcomes these difficulties and has the potential to become the basis of a system of human services in a future society based on principles of sustainability. Problems with conventional approaches to ‘community-based services’ Policies of community-based human services have the potential for both progressive and regressive change. Although such an approach may provide an opportunity for the kind of radical developments outlined in later chapters of this book, it has also been criticised for its inherent conservatism, on a number of grounds. This is not the place to explore these criticisms in detail, yet they need to be summarised and specifically acknowledged. Later chapters seek to describe an approach that overcomes these objections to community-based social provision. 1 Reducing the commitment to welfare In an era when governments are seeking to reduce expenditure on human services, community-based programs provide an expedient way for this to occur, and represent a form of ‘services on the cheap’. This is particularly true of the move from institutional care to community care, where the high costs of institutional care can be reduced, but it is also true of other ‘community-based’ options, in that they tend to rely more on the use of volunteers and on staff who are paid lower wages than those in the public sector. The practice of tendering, increasingly popular with governments, can lead to a ‘race to the bottom’ where agencies try to outbid each other as to which can provide the cheapest service. Such cost-cutting is a frequent result of moving to community-based services, and has a tendency to become the de facto justification for such a move. In addition, for a government intent on cost-cutting, it is often easier to reduce funding for community-based programs than to reduce funding for an equivalent service provided by the state. This is because the hard decision to reduce services is made at community level, usually by a local management committee, so it is not as readily seen as the fault of the government, even though it directly flows from a reduction in government funding. The community management committee can in this way easily be set up as the scapegoat for the withdrawal or reduction of public services Thus community-based services can readily serve the political agenda of a government that is committed to reducing public expenditure, and can facilitate the reduction in the share of the nation’s wealth going to human services. 2. Covert privatisation Another way in which community-based services can serve a conservative political agenda is by providing a rationale for the withdrawal of government responsibility and a corresponding move to a market-based approach. By simply withdrawing from service provision, loosely using the thetoric of “community responsibility’, a government can allow the private market to move in to fill the gap. This can result in a community-based project being operated by a market-driven philosophy with the goalof maximisation of profit rather than the meeting of human need, Thus the terms community and market can become synonymous. This is not necessarily so; the community development approach outlined in later chapters foresees a reduction in direct government activity but does not imply an increased reliance on the private market, at least in its large-scale manifestation, 3. The family Just as the rhetoric of ‘commumity-based services’ can be used as a justification for a retun to reliance on the market to meet human need, so it can be used to support a system where the family accepts a greater burden of care; as with privatisation, this is simply seeking to return to an older form of service provision, which is inappropriate for the contemporary context. Such a trend is particularly seen in the field of ‘commumity care’. This often does not imply that some form of local autonomous community will accept responsibility for a person’s care (as would be the case with a genuinely community-based system), rather that the person concerned will be cared for ‘in the community’ by members of their nuclear or extended family, usually women. It can therefore have the effect of placing extra burdens on family members, especially on women, while not acknowledging the pressures already placed on family structures and the breakdown of the traditional ‘family’ in contemporary society. 4 Gender A move to commumity-based services can place a disproportionate burden on women, both because of their traditional role as primary caregivers and because of the higher level of participation by women in the community sector. Within contemporary society, strongly influenced by economic rationalism and neo-liberalism, caregiving and involvement in commmmity activities are not highly valued, as they are not seen as creating wealth or improving productivity. Hence those who do the caring are devalued, and community-based services can help to marginalise women and reinforce dominant patriarchy. As will be discussed in chapter 3, the oppression of women is one of the fundamental forms of disadvantage in contemporary Western society, and community-based services need to be designed in such a way that they challenge rather than reinforce this disadvantage 5 The tyranny of locality Personal mobility is a characteristic of modern Western societies, and it has become accepted, even valued, that people should travel long distances to meet their needs for social interaction, entertainment, education, social services and so on. A community-based approach can be seen as restricting people to their local community when they may prefer to seek man services elsewhere, either because of a belief that a better service is available in another location or because of a wish for anonymity and a desire to avoid gossip and intrusive neighbours. 6 Locational inequalityBecause some communities are better resourced than others, a move to a commmity-based approach could simply reinforce existing inequalities between communities, often based on class lines. Communities with more resources would be able to provide higher levels of service, and disadvantaged communities might be further disadvantaged by being denied support from a strong central administration. The above criticisms of a community-based approach to human services are powerful. Taken together they suggest that community-based services can be profoundly conservative, and they explain why a community-based approach has been popular, at least at the rhetorical level, with conservative governments. While the rhetoric might appear progressive, or even radical, a commumity-based strategy can be used to reinforce traditional conservative understandings of the family, privatisation, government cutbacks and class and gender inequalities. It is hardly surprising that some critics have demonstrated a cynicism about community-based services — at least as understood within conventional policy discourse — and have been critical of their potential to present a truly radical alternative. ‘The approach presented in the following chapters seeks to overcome these objections, and to demonstrate how a community development approach need not be conservative but could challenge such conservative ideas, and could help to initiate an alternative society based on social justice as well as on ecological sustainability. The missing ingredient: community development ‘The criticisms above relate to a strategy of community-based services developed within the existing social, economic and political order. Such a strategy has a fundamental weakness, namely it assumes that there is an entity called ‘commmmity’ within which human services can be based, This assumption is problematic, given the lack of strong commumity structures in contemporary Western society. The history of industrial society — and indeed of capitalism — has been a history of the destruction of traditional community structures, whether based on the village, the extended family or the Church. This has been necessary for the development of industrial capitalism, which has required a mobile labour force, rising levels of individual and household consumption, increased personal mobility and the dominance of an individualist ideology. This is even more the case in the current experience of industrial and postindustrial capitalism, driven by neo-liberal ideology and global markets. While there remain some elements of traditional community structures, especially in rural areas, and while some community bonds are maintained through non-geographical commumities (e.g. ethnic communities), it is nevertheless true that community in the traditional sense is not a significant element of contemporary Western society, especially in urban or suburban settings. For this reason, the development of commumity-based structures seems somewhat contradictory, and it is little wonder that commmity-based services have proven problematic, as suggested by the criticisms in the previous section. The central issue can best be expressed as follows: how can therebe commumity-based services if there is no community in which to base them? The primary assumption of community-based services must surely be that there are community structures and processes that can take over all or some of the responsibility for the provision of human services. Although for centuries traditional communities performed these roles, more or less adequately, it is much more problematic in a society where the dominant social and economic order discourages the establishment of community and undermines community soli darity. Thus, a strategy of community-based services will not be effective unless steps are taken at the same time to reverse the trend of the erosion of community structures, which has been an integral part of capitalist industrial development. Community-based services therefore need to be accompanied by a program of community development that seeks to re-establish those structures. Such a program goes beyond the specifics of a particular commuity-based program, such as community-based childcare, education or health, It needs to encompass all aspects of human activity and interaction, and amounts to a radical restructuring of society. This might sound like a tall order but, as will be demonstrated in later chapters, there are grounds for believing that we have reached a point in history where such a transformation will not only become possible but also in fact be necessary for survival. The promise of community Despite the problems associated with commumity development, and the factors working against community in modern Western societies, the idea of community remains powerful. Many people feel strongly the oss of community’ or ‘loss of identity’ in modern society, and see rebuil ding community structures as a priority for the future (Bauman 2001). The power of the idea of commumity has long been recognised, and is seen in the tendency over the years for governments to use the term liberally in titles, speeches and so on, often with little substantive meaning, in 1981 Bryson and Mowbray famously described conmmmity as a ‘spray-on solution’ (Bryson & Mowbray 1981), and this has resonated with many writers since then. However, despite the problematic nature of the word, the power of the idea is significant as a basis for the organisation and development of alternative social and econoniic structures, as outlined in later chapters. It has served as a powerful vision for a number of writers in the field of commumity work (Block 2009, Butcher 2007b, Ingamells 2009, Ingamells et al, 2009, Ball 2011, Wheatley 2009, Chile 2007b, Kenny 2010, Campfens 1997, Kelly & Sewell 1988, Craig, Popple & Shaw 2008, Westoby & Dowling 2009, Clark & Teachout 2012). ‘The feeling of loss of community is often interpreted as nostalgia for an ideal that never really existed, and advocates of community development have been accused of idealising the ‘village community’ whose reality was in many instances oppressive. This is an important criticism, and it is essential that the notion of community be based on more substantial grounds than simply an ideal, even though the power of that ideal, and the importance of vision, must not be underrated. The chapters that follow seek to provide such a foundation. Social capital and civil societyThe ideas of social capital and civil society have become central to many understandings of community development. The idea of social capital is that one can ‘invest’ socially as well as economically, and that while the economic capital of a society may be increasing, if this is done at the cost of social capital it is a false gain (Putnam 1993a, 1993b, 2000; Field 2003). Social capital might be seen as the ‘glue’ that holds society together: human relationships, people doing things for each other out of a sense of social obligation and reciprocity, social solidarity and commmmity. Some commentators (Cox 1995, Winter 2000) have argued that the social capital of modern Western society is eroding, as purely economic market criteria are applied to transactions between people, and as individual achievement replaces community and social solidarity as the perceived priority for human action, Itis argued that it has become necessary to reverse this trend, to prevent the further erosion of social capital at the expense of monetary capital, and to invest in programs aimed at building social capital throughout society. Part of building social capital is the strengthening of ‘civil society’. Civil society is the term used for the formal or semiformal structures that people establish voluntarily, on their own initiative, rather than as a consequence of some government program or directive. Civil society includes the ‘non-government sector’ or ‘third sector’ (Earles & Lynn 2012), the ‘first two’ being the state and the private-for-profit sectors, where non-government agencies of many varieties have been established to help meet the needs of individuals, families and communities. But civil society is also broader than this, It includes service clubs — Rotary, Lions, Apex and so on — and incorporates social and recreational organisations: football clubs, tennis clubs, choral societies, walking clubs, cultural ‘groups, amateur dramatic societies, school ‘parent and citizen’ associations, book clubs, youth clubs, in fact any voluntarily formed association of people with common interests or purposes. Itis, in other words, the collective society that citizens have themselves chosen to form as a way to pursue their own interests. In an important research study, Robert Putnam (1993a) demonstrated how economic performance of commmities was directly correlated with the extent of civil society activity: a strong civil society not only strengthens social capital, it also strengthens economic performance. Part of the erosion of social capital in the West is the erosion of civil society. As the demands of the workplace grow, those in employment are finding they have less time and energy to participate in civil society, and many commmmity organisations are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit members and volunteers. For those who are unemployed, participation in civil society is often not valued by others; it is not seen as ‘work experience’ or as being relevant in the search for employment. And for those who have retired from the workforce, retirement is often constructed as a time to enjoy private ‘lifestyle’ pleasure and individual consumption, rather than as an opportunity to contribute skills and experience to the community. The erosion of civil society and of social capital represents a major problem for Western societies, and reduces the quality of life of those living in them. Community development is an obvious approach to seek to reverse this trend, both in the formalised structures of civil society and in the more wide-reaching idea of social capital, and this has been another important reason for the recent upsurge of interest in community devel opment.The danger of a neo-liberal vocabulary The idea of ‘social capital’, and the continuing research in this area by Putnam and others, is important. However, the use of the term social capital should give cause for concern. In adopting this language, Putnam and other writers were trying to make their argument in such a way as to appeal to economists, managers and others operating from within a more or less neo-liberal paradigm. But by doing so, adopting the vocabulary of economics, there is a danger that the idea of community — and of community devel opment — will also be seen from this perspective. Following ‘social capital’, there emerged ‘social enterprise’ (Klein 2009, Social Enterprise Alliance 2010), ‘social entrepreneurialism’ (Bornstein 2007, Nicholls 2006), ‘social marketing’ (a term now more commonly used to describe marketing using social media), and similar terms, each effectively defining community devel opment in a language that accepts and validates the neo-liberal discourse. Important successes have undoubtedly been achieved by programs using this language, but there is areal danger in using such vocabulary to define community development. As will be shown in later chapters, the approach to community development taken in this book stands against the principles and assumptions of neo-liberalism. It is based on the premise that neo-liberalism does not adequately meet human need or achieve the ends of social justice, human rights and environmental sustainability, but rather works against them. There is a need for an alternative to the neo-liberal world view, and community development, as outlined in subsequent chapters, represents a way towards such an alternative. From this perspective, to adopt the language of neo-liberalism is also adopt some of the tenets of neo-liberalism, and to accept at least part of that world view. For this reason, the language of social capital, social enterprise and so on will not be used in this book. Another term that has become widely used, especially in the context of international development, is capacity building. While the idea of commumity capacity building does not carry with it the same neo-liberal assumptions as ‘social capital’ or ‘social enterprise’, it nevertheless does not convey the meaning of community development outlined in later chapters (Craig 2007). The very idea that communities lack something called ‘capacity’ sets up a deficit approach to commmnity development, defining a community in terms of its weaknesses, rather than the assets-based approach, which will be discussed in later chapters. It also raises the questions of who has defined capacity, and capacity for what? These tend to be defined by people external to the community, rather than by the community itself, as a community development approach requires. There is no space here for a fuller critique of community capacity building, but the reader is referred to Kenny and Clarke’s book, Questioning Community Capacity Building (2010) for a more detailed discussion. The ‘needs of strangers’ With the breakdown of traditional communities and the development of modern industrial society, a fundamental change took place in the nature of human interaction, which in his classic sociological work has been described by Ténnies (1955) as the change from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft. While Tonnies’ analysis is complex, for present purposes his distinction can be summarised (and grosslyoversimplified) by saying that in Gemeinschajt society people interact with a relatively small number of other people, whom they know well, in many different roles, whereas in Gesellschaft society one has interactions with many more people, but these interactions are limited to specific instrumental activities. Thus, in Gesellschaft society we do not know most of the people with whom we have contact except in their specific roles of, for example, shop assistant, teacher, client, bus driver, customer, nurse or secretary. Our communication with them is limited to a discrete transaction, and any knowledge of them beyond their capacity to fill the particular role is considered unnecessary, irrelevant and an intrusion into their private affairs. There is a clear understanding of what constitutes legitimate business in our dealings with another person, and any attempt to cross the boundary into other aspects of human life can result in being told ‘It is none of your business’. In Gemeinschaft society such distinctions are not important, or are non-existent. People know each other well, although in smaller numbers, through a variety of different transactions. The ‘public’ and the ‘private” are not separated, and individuals are known to each other as people rather than roles. In such a society, ‘comity’ is a much richer, deeper and more real experience, and forms the basis for all social interaction, With the transformation from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft, human services, like other social interactions, have become based on instrumental relationships, with the service provider and the consumer knowing each other only in those specific roles. From the earlier approach of meeting the needs of one’s neighbour, we have moved to a system based on meeting the ‘needs of strangers”, as described by a number of writers (Titmuss 1970, Ignatieff 1984). This is a fimdamental change, and requires a different moral justification, different ethical principles and, above all, different structures. ‘The whole apparatus of the modern welfare state has been constructed on the basis of the ‘needs-of- strangers’ approach, and with it have come large bureaucracies and an increasingly professionalised approach to human services. Instead of having a responsibility to meet the needs of one’s neighbours, the responsibility of the citizen is to pay taxes so that somebody else (usually a professional ‘expert’) can be employed to do the job. Direct responsibility for human services thus moves from the citizen to a team of experts employed by the state, leaving the citizen free to pursue their private ends unencumbered by the needs of others, except in terms of financial obligation. Some people, of course, choose for their own reasons to become involved in helping others through voluntary activity, but this is seen as a matter of individual choice rather than a responsibility of citizenship, and voluntary work is often regarded as auxiliary to the ‘main’ work of those employed by the welfare state to deliver human services It should be noted that a private market approach to human services also incorporates the needs- of-strangers model. Here the private citizen is absolved of the responsibility to meet the needs of others even through the payment of taxes, and individuals are expected to look after themselves through purchasing services in the marketplace, possibly with the help of insurance (again purchased in a market). This form of market transaction in modern society involves limited instrumental relationships, and hence it implies, in common with the welfare state, a needs-of-strangers approach, ‘A move to commmity-based services and structures, as advocated in subsequent chapters, essentially seeks to reverse the dominant trend towards the needs-of-strangers model, as epitomised