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?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Institutions as independent variables.
Can institutions be the Independent Variable in a theory?
I am 'toying' with the idea that:
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.
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
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.
Monday, October 6, 2008
"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?
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?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Resilience and ecology
Social and ecological resilience: are they related?
By: W. Neil Adger
Firstly, Adger uses ecological systems as examples of a community being able to maintain itself (resilience) in the face of disturbances. Adger states, “this definition high lights social resilience in relation to the concept of ecological resilience which is a characteristic of ecosystems to maintain themselves in the face of disturbance” (Adger 2000). Adger furthers his definition to include communities by stating, “Social resilience is defined as the ability of communities to withstand external shocks to their social infrastructure” (Adger 2000). It is especially important to communities that are resource dependent to be resilient, if not; the communities will not be sustainable. What I liked about Adger’s article is that he emphasizes the need for a resource dependent community to diversify because if the resource that a community is dependent on disappears, then the “the impact on the household livelihood security can be significant” (Adger 2000). Adger also mentions that “traditional management systems for common pool resources are often undermined by privatization and government policies, driven by the idea that private resources give increasing returns compared to open access” (Adger 2000). Adger emphasizes that institutions which help govern the communities must be resilient in order to absorb the external shocks that occur.
Adger provides me some insight into what my topic of interest will be focused on. My research topic will be the livelihood diversification strategy for the rural landless poor (defined as poorest of the poor by the NGO) by the Institute of Integrated Rural Development (IIRD) in Bangladesh. The landless poor, however, do not have an established management system because they have no access to resources. In addition to having to access to resources, they have been largely excluded from mainstream development schemes because of their vulnerability and lack of assets. As Adger mentions in his article, these households will not be able to be resilient to external shocks. My question is how can these vulnerable communities be enhanced to in order to become resilient?
I plan to use Rie Makita’s doctoral thesis on IIRD’s diversification strategy for the landless poor to better understand Adger’s theory that communities could be resilient if a communities diversify their assets. Makita recommends that a small scale NGO, such as IIRD, should serve as a sponsor for the landless poor to support ‘non-farm’ activities in order to create opportunities for livelihood diversification. The non-farm activities are fishery cooperatives, poultry rearing, and silk-rearing. These three activities are not agricultural activities, but are integrated with the overall market system in rural Bangladesh.
By: W. Neil Adger
Firstly, Adger uses ecological systems as examples of a community being able to maintain itself (resilience) in the face of disturbances. Adger states, “this definition high lights social resilience in relation to the concept of ecological resilience which is a characteristic of ecosystems to maintain themselves in the face of disturbance” (Adger 2000). Adger furthers his definition to include communities by stating, “Social resilience is defined as the ability of communities to withstand external shocks to their social infrastructure” (Adger 2000). It is especially important to communities that are resource dependent to be resilient, if not; the communities will not be sustainable. What I liked about Adger’s article is that he emphasizes the need for a resource dependent community to diversify because if the resource that a community is dependent on disappears, then the “the impact on the household livelihood security can be significant” (Adger 2000). Adger also mentions that “traditional management systems for common pool resources are often undermined by privatization and government policies, driven by the idea that private resources give increasing returns compared to open access” (Adger 2000). Adger emphasizes that institutions which help govern the communities must be resilient in order to absorb the external shocks that occur.
Adger provides me some insight into what my topic of interest will be focused on. My research topic will be the livelihood diversification strategy for the rural landless poor (defined as poorest of the poor by the NGO) by the Institute of Integrated Rural Development (IIRD) in Bangladesh. The landless poor, however, do not have an established management system because they have no access to resources. In addition to having to access to resources, they have been largely excluded from mainstream development schemes because of their vulnerability and lack of assets. As Adger mentions in his article, these households will not be able to be resilient to external shocks. My question is how can these vulnerable communities be enhanced to in order to become resilient?
I plan to use Rie Makita’s doctoral thesis on IIRD’s diversification strategy for the landless poor to better understand Adger’s theory that communities could be resilient if a communities diversify their assets. Makita recommends that a small scale NGO, such as IIRD, should serve as a sponsor for the landless poor to support ‘non-farm’ activities in order to create opportunities for livelihood diversification. The non-farm activities are fishery cooperatives, poultry rearing, and silk-rearing. These three activities are not agricultural activities, but are integrated with the overall market system in rural Bangladesh.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)