Reflections on "Are Academics Irrelevant?"

Readindg Stoeker's article provided me with some insight into my own research on IIRD and Grameen Bank in Bangladesh.

One of the main reasons that my undergraduate professor, Dr. Larry Hufford, sent me to Bangladesh was because he wanted me to learn IIRD's approach to development. The organization was decentralized and had 'sub-centres' in every village where they were aiding the poor. At the sub-centres, social workers resided and would visit the development partners (beneficiaries) on a daily basis. The social workers would meet with current and potential development partners to discuss their situation and possible solutions to their problems. It was difficult not to act as being able to point out what the development partners needed. The development partners were good at informing the social workers what worked and what did not work. For example, as a social worker I recommended for a family to participate in cow rearing. I believed this would be the best way for the family to own an asset and generate some income with the cow's milk. However, the development partner informed me that they had no prior training on how to rear a cow. It would be 'stupid' of me to give them a cow. Instead, they told me that harvesting rice would be best, in the initial stages, and cow training should occur during the harvesting. Eventually, after earning some income and acquiring training, then they would be able to participate in cow rearing.

Stoeker's reading reminded me of this experience. As Stoeker mentions, "recommendations for academics who want to help: be quick, listen, participate, use your priestly power for good, be creative, use people, help us get ahead of the curve, look to all of your work for opportunities to help, and sin bravely!" (Stoeker, 1999).

What's funny is that William Christensen of IIRD, told me that my first order of business in Bangladesh was to spend at least six months living in a sub-center with social workers. Regardless if I was doing any practical work, he wanted me to observe and listen to the development partners in order to fully understand IIRD's work and more importantly, the development partners.

The Case of the Missing Citizens.

Reading Randy Stoeker's The CDC Model of Urban Redevelopment: A Critique and an Alternative, reminded me of the Plaza Fortuna Reinvestment Zone in the Westside of San Antonio. In fact, the reinvestment zone is only a 15 minute walk from my house.

The reinvestment zone was intended to attract investment by outside developers to the vacant land and provide affordable house. Ideally, by developing the empty lot (that was used as a place to dump old tires) the area would have a new and healthy community. However, a neighborhood association was never created.

I attended an annual meeting last January as a representative of a state legislature's office. The annual meeting had police officers, members of the San Antonio Economic Development Office, the developer, and a member from city hall. However, no resident was present.

The only person to show frustration was the police officer because he said the area was known for crime and vandalism. He asked if a member of the neighborhood association was present, but a Representative of the Economic Development said one was never created. No one said anything, except for the developer. All he said was, "hey, I just built the homes."

I walked away disappointed that this had occurred, but as Stoeker mentions, "market processes are unpredictable, unstable, unaccountable, and disorganizing" (Stoeker, 1997). Whoever the leaders that were involved in the creation of Plaza Fortuna, never consulted with local residents. Nor have they attempted mobilize residents since then. But as Stoeker mentioned, it is not a CDC's job to mobilize persons. Then who does? My belief is that elected officials or residents now must take the initiative to organize and create a neighborhood association. Ideally, if the neighborhood association is created, it could address issues such as crime and vandalism. But, before that could happen, much work must be done in order to help residents meet each other, discuss problems, and initiate whatever they believe is necessary. Hopefully, they could identify people who could represent them on the annual board meeting?

Participatory Action Research

Reading some material over Participatory Action Research (PAR) provided some insight into my (our)work in community development. At first glance, I must admit, I believed that PAR was used during studies of a community for a research paper or proposal. However, I realize now that PAR should be used during all types of community development work. I believe this is true because it returns to our initial readings of Neil Thin which emphasized the need to find effective ways of measuring social progress. By using PAR, then an organization is enabled to know first hand what a community needs because it is consulting (or working together) with the community its attempting to help. By allowing the community to participate in identifying a problem, creating solutions, and implementing a project, then social progress might be achieved.

The 'third party' facilitator.

I reread the first three pages of Grammer of Institutions. There is a section that says that people work together to create a equilibrium and not a third party enforcer. However, after reading the introduction of the Mondragon Cooperacion Cooperativa and the history, it is discovered that Fr. Jose Maria was the reason why the cooperative was able to first start. The history says, "Father Jose Maria worked tirelessly with the young people of the parish, organising a multitude of sporting, cultural and educational activities" (Madragon, 2007). Out of these social capital creating activities, leaders emmerged and these leaders helped refine the ideas (or hypothesis) of what projects should be created in the area. It was done through "listening, debating, and doing" (Madragon 2008).

As I review both IIRD's and Grameen Bank's work, I find that both organizations helped facilitate the creation of social capital (or networks) between people of the community. As the social capital was strengthened, the institutional norms and values that are now present in these communities were formed. This is what Madragon Cooperative was able to achieve and this is what Ostrom also speaks about with regard to institutions. Finally, this process returns to one of our initial readings, The Moral Sense, which also discusses the acceptance of certain morals by a group of people through the strengthening of relationships.

So, I do agree that groups of individuals are who agree upon certain norms and values. However, a 'third party facilitator' must be present, not an enforcer. Only the members of the community could be the 'enforcers.'

The term 'institutions'

I have been reading the Grammer of Institutions and I believe that I have finally come to realize that I should stop referring to organizations as the only way to define institutions. As I continue to research for my paper, I see that there are formal and non-formal institutions. I am assuming that formal institutions are organizations, government, etc.

What I do like about my current research is that institutions are defined as a network of poeple that helps them determine values and norms. Not only do they determine values and norms, they share them. Resulting from shared values and norms, the members involved begin to become more responsible and aim at not only helping themselves, but the other members of the community.

How does this fit into my research paper? Although I don't consider my paper a complete work, I am starting to see how the NGO and Grameen Bank serve as the organizations that help facilitate the institutions (both formal and non-formal) that are aiding the community to develop. Am I down the right path?

Institutions as independent variables.

Can institutions be the Independent Variable in a theory?



I am 'toying' with the idea that:

(IV)Development Institutions (based on Democractic principles (CV)) → (Int. V)expand social capital (Along with diversification of assets (CV)) → (DV) sustainable communities

I'm attempting to simplify my theory and organize my variables.


So, what I'm trying to say is:













Development institutions that use democratic principles will lead to sustainable communities; only if social capital is expanding along with the diversification of assets.

"Yunus Process"

I have been reading Participation as Process-Process as Growth: What we can learn from Grameen Bank Bangladesh by Andreas Fuglesang and Dale Chandler. In their book, Fuglesang and Chandler note that Dr. Muhammad Yunus (founder of the Grameen Bank) takes a different approach to change from Alinsky and Freire. They state that while Alinsky and Freire advocated "to some extent, conflict and confratation as a means of synthesizing action for liberation and development, the Yunus approach is analytical, process oriented and non-confrontational....to counteract and supercede oppressive structures, it builds alternative, more effective and enabling socio-economic frameworks through which people can participate in action towards their liberation...and it attempts to do so on a large scale" (Fuglesang and Chandler 1995). They continue to describe the Yunus approach as "organizational learning and development...the issue is to develop an organization which is responsive to the needs of the participants and capable of sustaining this responsiveness" (Fuglesang and Chandler 1995). My questions are:

Should we always aim at establishing new frameworks or sometimes attempt to transform existing frameworks?

How does the Grameen Bank ensure that it remains responsive to the needs of the participants? As Green and Haines (2008) question in Asset Building and Community Development, "a big question that NGOs face is, who are they accountable to? If they work for and with the poor in developing countries, or at least specific constituencies in specific developing countries, are they accountable to them or are they accountable to the agency that has provided funding for their operations and projects." Is this where we refer back to the democratic morality that should be institutionalized?