A Bit of Context: A History of Top-Down Development
At the heart of the UPFORD approach to development is its emphasis on engaging the local community. In a reflective piece on Ford’s work in Nnindye, Lacey Haussamen, former Assistant Director of the program, writes the following:
"Our goal in Uganda is to work in partnership with universities and local communities to make a positive, measurable, and sustainable difference in people’s lives. We design community development projects, research efforts, and learning opportunities in dialogue with local people to ensure they address their community’s priorities and challenges."[1]
"Our goal in Uganda is to work in partnership with universities and local communities to make a positive, measurable, and sustainable difference in people’s lives. We design community development projects, research efforts, and learning opportunities in dialogue with local people to ensure they address their community’s priorities and challenges."[1]
Village leader overlooks an UPFORD garden
During the course of my own research in Nnindye, I sought to understand the process and impact of UPFORD’s approach. The program’s guiding principles fall within the development paradigm of ‘participatory rural appraisal’ (PRA). This school of thought has dominated development initiatives throughout the 1990s and 2000s. According to experts from the School of International Development and Global Studies at the University of Ottawa, PRA is “a conceptual framework for rural development in the South that stresses putting farmers first and handing over the stick of authority and control to local communities.”[2] They explain that while PRA is now a standard tool, success has been mixed due to a number of different complicating factors. One of the most threatening of these factors involves the paternalistic traditions of development that have been in place since colonial times.
It quickly became clear during my time in Uganda that the community perceptions of development were entrenched quite deeply in a history of top-down development. With no consideration of the needs and desires of those living in Nnindye, organizations had been coming into the area for years to distribute everything from bean seedlings to children’s blankets. Typically, a select group of individuals in the villages were put in charge of circulating these resources. More often than not, the family and friends of these select elites were the only ones to benefit. At no point during the process did the outside development organizations attempt to engage the local people in dialogue to determine their development priorities or the potential of their local assets.
It is with these past experiences and no concept of participatory development that residents of Nnindye approach the UPFORD program. This historical context is an unfortunate reality, yet one we must keep at the forefront of our minds, as we continue the process of community engagement. We must realize that the transition from dependency to ownership of community development projects is complex and fraught with the ingrained compartmentalization of resource givers and receivers. The success of this transition relies on the ability of all actors involved to recognize the importance of joining together in a partnership for sustainable development, founded in the inherent dignity of all people.
[1] Haussamen, Lacey. “Reflections on Nnindye.” 2012.
[2] Haslam, Paul Alexander, Jessica Schafer, and Pierre Beaudet. Introduction to International Development: Approaches, Actors, and Issues. Ontario: Oxford UP, 2009. Print, p. 338.
It quickly became clear during my time in Uganda that the community perceptions of development were entrenched quite deeply in a history of top-down development. With no consideration of the needs and desires of those living in Nnindye, organizations had been coming into the area for years to distribute everything from bean seedlings to children’s blankets. Typically, a select group of individuals in the villages were put in charge of circulating these resources. More often than not, the family and friends of these select elites were the only ones to benefit. At no point during the process did the outside development organizations attempt to engage the local people in dialogue to determine their development priorities or the potential of their local assets.
It is with these past experiences and no concept of participatory development that residents of Nnindye approach the UPFORD program. This historical context is an unfortunate reality, yet one we must keep at the forefront of our minds, as we continue the process of community engagement. We must realize that the transition from dependency to ownership of community development projects is complex and fraught with the ingrained compartmentalization of resource givers and receivers. The success of this transition relies on the ability of all actors involved to recognize the importance of joining together in a partnership for sustainable development, founded in the inherent dignity of all people.
[1] Haussamen, Lacey. “Reflections on Nnindye.” 2012.
[2] Haslam, Paul Alexander, Jessica Schafer, and Pierre Beaudet. Introduction to International Development: Approaches, Actors, and Issues. Ontario: Oxford UP, 2009. Print, p. 338.