KISHA MARIELLE C. BERINGUELA PROF.

VENARICA
PAPA

2014-89247 M COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CD 271- INTEGRATIVE

ESSAY

The development world has undergone several phases and models. From the Western
Liberal Model to the welfare, socialist, democratic-socialist, Gandhian, and sustainable
development models, society has been trying to adapt on how to create meaningful
development for growth. Development growth that is essential socially and economically.
Growth that addresses social issues, at the same time growth that also tends to the need of
societies’ economic pockets. The identified development models above are the majority of
models that the development world has used. These are the dominant models used to
incorporate “progress” and “development” in different communities and countries. As we
further venture in this development industry, we see how these models differ and adjust to fit
the narrative and current needs of society.

As we create definitions for the words progress and development, we recognize that
their meaning changes from time to time. The lenses one uses in defining progress and
development creates different definitions. They vary because society creates multiple
definitions with different lenses. Perspective on progress and development are subjective to
the person’s background, goal, and motives. Each definition changes over time.

Currently, people in the development world have created alternative methods. These
methods are somewhat considered options that are revered as ideal and more progressive. It
highlights inclusivity, diversity, and addresses the issue of othering for the “outdated” theories.
The latter development models (integral, participatory, inclusive development) despite its
popularity nowadays in the development sector are still considered and seen as alternative
ones because of the lack of established protocols and institutional mechanisms. However, in my
personal take on this, I see it as part of the timeline in establishing the development models. All
development models during their earlier years and idea conception were called alternatives,
until more institutions took part in making these alternatives the priority models.

The Western Liberal Model of development was adopted in a lot of countries. Even in
the Philippines, this type of development model still exists or if not still greatly influence how
the development sector works. The Western liberal model typically mirrors how the first world
countries evolved. How they “escaped” poverty, how they progressed as a society. The western
liberal model creates a somewhat set of parameters that are “essential” for growth and
progress because in previous experiences of the first world countries it worked out for them. A
country will only be seen as a developed state when they have what the first world countries
have. This for me is a very faulty mindset. As community development students, we recognize
the diversity of groups and individuals. There is no one size fit all type of development. Rather,
we have to recognize that societies work differently from each other. Development depends on
how societies work as a whole. Culture must be taken into consideration, family dynamics,
religion, politics, a countries geographical setting, weather, rituals- these things affect
development. Given how big the world is and how different cultures are, development
practitioners should recognize and accept that there will never be a panacea and singular recipe
for progress and development. It will always be up to the people and the community,
development programs that they see fit for them.

Another type of dominant development model is the welfare model of development. I

for one see it as a good attempt on addressing development. Given the big role of the state to
actually provide for its people, the welfare model was very promising in addressing the socio-
economic needs and inequalities among the people. Imagine, social services like education,
health, and employment are addressed by the people’s governing agencies. These social
services were ideally provided for the people are readily available to the public. Thoughts that
this type of development model was not be the best route to go however also existed. The idea
that people might be too dependent on social services spooked some practitioners since
progress might be in a stand still because there are no more incentives for innovation and hard
work. The welfare model was seen as a spoon-fed way of development. The serious problem
also came down to its implementation. Corruption and bureaucracy hound the religious and
important institutions of governance. This is the reality for us developing countries. A week
government institution with democracy playing a significant role in keeping corrupt and greedy
people in power. This was seen and proven in the Philippines recent national elections. Political
clans rule the country. The two people in the highest seats of the government are children of
former and current dictators. The influence of these political figures, their machinery, maintains
and if not preserve the very corrupt processes that their fathers and families have established
for years. Drastic and transformative change that will go against these corrupt practices
however is no match for money, power, connections, and influence. Social services that are
allotted supposedly to the people and marginalized sectors ends up in the pockets of the few
and the powerful.

The socialist/Marxist model of development was born to reject the capitalist-liberal model
of development. It forwards a classless society with goods and services shared equitably, a state-run
economy that includes national health programs, free education, subsidized housing, and food. This type
of model also has a government who is in-charge of redistributing wealth and narrowing the gap
between the rich and poor. It discourages private ownership and leans towards collective ownership.
Society also only produces things that are deemed useful and are primary needs by its people. This type
of development and governance can still be seen in some countries like Cuba and North Korea. This
model was also formerly used by the Soviet Union or USSR. In paper I see this model as a clean type of
development. Discrimination is avoided in theory so it should be an ideal model for development.
However, given the capitalistic tendencies of humans, I see the socialist/Marxist model working for a
few years but always eventually failing. Humans have already gotten a taste of capitalism. Realistically a
society that will repress their people’s cravings would eventually be left out. The people will grow tired
of the same thing. Competition was already introduced in society, making people naturally want more
than what the other people already have. A socialist model of development would be ideal for
communal type of societies however in this day and age where technology and convenience are in an
arm’s length, the human tendency would be to choose those over collectively struggling. This fact can be
seen in our society today. The simplest of things like eating out for dinner. If one can afford paying
someone else to cook them dinner, they would choose to pay (if they can afford it) for the convenience
of not slaving in the kitchen.
 The democratic-socialist model of development as I see it is actually a mixture of the good in the
welfare, socialist, and liberal development models. It ideally gets the best ingredients coming from the
previous models of development. Much of the properties are state owned and major key industries are
operated by the government making little to no room for capitalist hegemonies. The social services are
provided and available to the public. Government regulation is done and even the accumulation of
private properties is monitored. This in essence closes and minimizes economic gaps amongst its people.
I personally lean towards this type of governance. However, realistically I don’t see this happening in the
Philippines anytime soon. Given the weak and problematic democratic practices and institutions we
have, this type of model will not work. We would have to first address the nitty gritty issues we have in
our democracy. Reforms in the electoral processes, solutions to government agencies’ bureaucracy and
corruption, regulation and prohibition of capitalist exploitation, and rejection neo-colonial tendencies
should take place first. These are the key issues we have to address in order for us to secure an honest
type of progress and development. first in our country before we proceed in considering a democratic-
socialist model.

When I read the Gandhian model of development, I was definitely under the impression
the this was the most ideal model for development. It talked about the importance of
communities (in the form of villages), how development should be people-centered, and how
people should be empowered by their government. Villagers participated in their industries.
They lived in a communal way and the reduction of their materialistic wants were not imposed
and dictated directly like the Marxist/communist model rather the people through their high
regard for simplicity and moral values volunteered to live that way. It also talks about an
education system that is not westernized, the kind of education that is practical and holistic for
the individual and the village’s growth. It highlighted the important benefits of cooperatives
and forwarded self-sufficiency in the village. Self-sufficiency which can be seen both as a pro
and a con. Pro because the village is independent and will survive without the other village’s
support. But because of this self-sufficiency tenet, innovation and inclusivity are blurred and
somewhat rejected. This specific component in the Gandhian model disregards the value of
relationships and networking in terms of technology, growth, and innovation. The idea of
alienation and othering existed in this model, and it complicates relationship with other
neighboring villages or countries.
 The sustainable development model which is quite popular in development
organizations in the Philippines nowadays pushes for development and progress that is
considerate to the world’s natural resources and ecosystem. This model ignited the important
conversation on how we can secure a world that is still functioning economically, socially, and
environmentally for the future generations. It tackles conservation of resources and progress in
the realms of our economy, community, and environment. This has been discussed and
forwarded by the United Nations. The inter-governmental organization established a set of
goals that countries work on together for the betterment of society. The sustainable
development goals gained popularity and created more meaningful conversations. It raised
awareness on progress and development issues. Face value wise this development model only
mentions three important dimensions which are society, environment, and economy. In reality,
the politics in development play a vital role in realizing programs and goals. Without political
will, these goals will not get a follow through. The United Nations, though established as a
relevant independent institution for international cooperation still plays to the tune of
politicians and hegemonies. They are not immune to the manipulation of powerful states and
industries. At the end of the day, we have to accept that even established institutions with good
intentions to keep the harmony, can still be influenced by those in power.

After discussing the dominant models of development, we must also tackle the
contemporary and alternative options. These contemporary and alternative models of
development are not as popular as the dominant models however these newer models are
already getting traction and gaining wide interests. Examples of these are the integral,
participatory, and inclusive development. While these models are fairly new in the scene,
development institutions have already explored the use of some in their programs. Integral
development has been used by the church. It supports the teaching of the scriptures that doing
good for other people will create the city of God- the ideal society. It incorporates not just the
economical and social needs but also ponders on the spiritual and moral needs. This is a
common practice in all religions in general. Although it is regarded to be a model from catholic
teachings, doing good is a universal tenet in one’s faith and human morality. Whichever religion
you practice or even if you don’t practice religion at all, growing up culturally and socially we
were taught what is good and what is bad. Helping other people and the less fortunate was
atleast taught to us as a good deed by our keepers early on.

Inclusive and participatory models have been used in government institutions and
development aid agencies. The participatory model highlights the need for people participation
and empowerment. It recognizes cultural diversity. It provides a space for one’s participation in
matters concerning them— on how to create meaningful change in their respective
communities. This however is criticized for being slow. Given the number of discussions that
have to take place before activities and initiatives to starts and get approved, time and funding
will be challenged to ensure that everyone was listened to. Participatory model of development
comes alongside inclusive development. Since people participate, we have to make sure that
the space and environment where they are taking part in is welcoming and accepting. The
inclusive model of development addresses the paradigm shift in development. Moving further
beyond the issue of poverty and the poor. It integrates social, political, and environmental
inclusions. Inclusive development takes into consideration one’s wellbeing and the
sustainability of it. This is still relatively new, so we have to see how this blossoms and evolves
like the previously discussed dominant models. These contemporary and alternative models are
promising since it recognizes morality, diversity, empowerment, and social inclusions. Hopefully
the important factors of these models get to be further integrated in our development context
and institutions.