Concept (E-Journal)

Book reviewCommunity Development in Theory and Practice an International ReaderEdited by; Gary Craig, Keith Popple and Mae Sha

Fairweather, Stuart

Concept Vol.1 No.1  2009   Reviews 
 
Book review 
Community Development in 
Theory and Practice an 
International Reader 
 
Gary Craig, Keith Popple, Mae Shaw (eds) 
Spokesman: 2008 
 
Being asked to review a book that begins 
in the year of your birth is a daunting task.  
The 29 contributions cover the period 
1966-2005.  From New Zealand to El 
Salvador, from Scotland to South Africa, 
the authors are drawn from across the 
globe: complemented by an introduction.  
For students and workers this is essential 
reading.  The forward asserts the editor’s 
hope to strengthen a ‘now-global project’: 
community development.  Below I attempt 
to assess how far this has been done. 
It would be wrong to list the merits of each 
of the chapters in turn.  I took the approach 
of reading through the chapters in 
chronological order but the format affords 
flexibility.  This book is not a completion 
of the best of the back catalogue of the 
Community Development Journal (CDJ).  
Thanks to the editor’s painstaking 
selection it is more than that.  It is both a 
perspective on our history and a tool for 
future thought and action. 
Marjorie Mayo’s introduction asks us to 
consider the ‘continuities and 
discontinuities’ over time; but reminds us 
to take care with context.  Not simply 
transferring one historical moment for 
another or too lightly dismissing the 
cultural or political specifics. The 
‘competing theoretical perspectives’ on 
community development also require 
consideration.  Mayo offers the reader a 
conceptual framework: 
 The post-colonial legacy 
 Community work and the state 
 Social movement and globalisation 
This is a helpful starting point. 
The early chapters are located in the 
colonial; they talk about community 
development becoming ‘something in its 
own right’, distinct from social work but 
still contributing to betterment: helping 
people to become ‘more productive and 
more deserving’.  Batten in chapter 5 calls 
for agencies to co-ordinate effort so that 
people ‘really do value’ the services and 
amenities provided to them.  Writing in 
1974 his sentiments find an echo in the 
managerialism of today.  Wrestling with 
the limitations of practice however Batten 
goes on to ask whether community 
development should not be simply 
considered an approach.  This emphasis on 
technique distances practice from theory; 
ideology and significant social change, 
things that the book goes on to consider 
further. 
The following chapters provide able 
illustration of why technique alone cannot 
withstand the impact of policy, politics or 
the cultural manifestations of inequality.  
Drawing Antonio Gramsci, in chapter 12 
Jennifer Sayer asserts ideology ‘is created 
and recreated through the social practices 
that hold society together’.   Here 
individuals are seen as subjects of history 
operating in civil society, in and against 
the welfare state.  Structural analysis is 
retained:  people and communities have 
agency but within the context of existing 
inequality.  This jars with a later chapter 
where self-described radical workers are 
trapped by their own determinism and by a 
Concept Vol.1 No.1  2009   Reviews 
 
lack of ‘strategy’ (chapter 18).  
Developing that strategy can be about 
challenging the official discourse.  Mae 
Shaw and Ian Martin (chapter 25) illustrate 
this in relation to citizenship.  To 
‘democratise democracy’ we need to 
‘politicize politics’ this cannot be done 
without ‘commitment, leadership and 
organisation’ (chapter 20).  It also means 
workers seeing community development as 
contributing to a counter hegemonic 
project.  A project that challenges negative 
social relations (Izugbara, chapter 27), this 
means asking questions about our social 
purpose and the explicit and implicit 
content of our programmes.  This reading 
of the book tests, to a degree, Mayo’s 
framework.  Returning to it we are 
reminded to be careful not to let hindsight 
distort historical reality.  Gary Craig’s 
chapter (15) chronicles community 
development progress in Britain, from its 
early history, mentioned above, through 
the post-war social democratic consensus 
and the advent of the Community 
Development Project (CDP).  The CDP 
marked the high point of an unnuanced 
structural analysis that saw welfare as a 
sop to deflect from ‘industrial and 
economic’ exploitation.  
 However, as outlined above social 
movements were already alive to a reality 
that was more complex. In response to 
Thatcherism, practice needed to be both 
‘in and against the state’ and understand 
that in ‘a world that has no patience with a 
class analysis’ there is a need to address 
other (previously ignored) contradictions 
(Sondhi, Chapter 21).  But it did not end 
there.  Community development, like 
many other parts of the welfare state 
infrastructure, had to not only undergo self 
examination and internal ideological 
contestation but also withstand the 
onslaught of global neo-liberal orthodoxy.  
In some cases this has seen a threat to 
‘autonomy’ and a battle for continued 
existence.  As politicians embrace the 
market they have suggested that ‘local 
authorities must cease doing so many 
things themselves’ (Chapter 26).  This may 
push community development to the 
margins and/or provide the impetus for 
reinvention. 
At the time of writing there are huge 
global financial and environmental 
imperatives.   In Britain there is a crisis of 
formal governmental processes.  There is a 
need to rethink citizenship ‘in a free 
society as distinct from a ‘free’ market’ 
(Chapter 25).   That gives community 
workers space to be more than uncritical 
conduits of government policy.  
Educational and developmental activity 
requires to respond to the agendas of the 
communities we work with but those 
agendas require to include challenging 
inequality and to be transformative.  
Reading and discussing the chapters in this 
book will provide practical inspiration for 
that activity: strengthening community 
development global and local potential. 
Stuart Fairweather 
Dundee City Council    


Community Development in Theory and Practice an International Reader

Scandrett, E

concept vol 1 no 1 2010

Editorial November 2009

presentation to NIACE conference on democratising democrac

Shaw, Mae

Repoliticising democracy

Book review‘Making Spaces for Community Development’ by Michael Pitchford with Paul Henderson, Policy press 200

Watt, Clare

Concept Vol. 1 No. 1 2009    Reviews 
 
 
Book Review 
 
Making Spaces for 
Community Development 
 
Michael Pitchford with Paul Henderson, 
Policy press 2008 
 
‘Making Spaces for Community Development‟ 
provides a brief historical context of community 
development over a forty year period using 
insights and reflections of experienced 
practitioners within the field to highlight lessons 
which inform professional practice, both 
currently and for the future.  Throughout the 
period indicated, the book analyses the changes 
to the policy context which have created 
tensions, challenges and opportunities for 
community development, with particular 
reference to the shift towards a partnership 
model. The current emphasis, being driven by 
the government within the model of Community 
Planning, is towards a more „technical vehicle of 
capacity building,‟ which attempts to depoliticise 
community development by delivering short term 
interventions and by engaging communities 
around service delivery. This is described by the 
authors as the „professionalisation of the 
profession.‟ The book argues that the historic 
focus of community development work on social 
change will become weakened and lost if 
practitioners do not critically analyse both the 
policy context and their role, and ensure that the 
values which underpin community development 
(such as social justice, equality and 
empowerment ) continue to inform practice. The 
book is not prescriptive, but encourages further 
discussion by raising key questions about 
current practice for debate. 
 
The book clearly indicates the kind of constraints 
which have contributed towards the 
development of a more technical approach, such 
as the emphasis on the delivery of outcomes/ 
outputs to secure sustainability of an 
organisation and equally to satisfy the various 
funding stream objectives. This top down 
approach militates against community 
development practice reconnecting with the 
politics of communities and can instead simply 
deliver social policy for the government if not 
approached critically. The authors point out that 
this is a consequence of a growing emphasis on 
the kind of short term interventions that 
disregard the processes of community 
development which are based on a more long 
term approach.  
 
The book is a useful resource for current 
practice from both a theoretical and practical 
perspective. For example, there are six lessons 
arrived at from the insights and reflections of the 
featured practitioners, drawn from their 
experience of the 1970s and 1980s, and these 
six lessons compliment  Mae Shaw‟s “seven C‟s 
for radical practice” (1997) to provide a useful 
practice framework which strengthens the role 
and position of community development. Within 
the current context, and corresponding 
constraints, these offer direction and a 
framework to create space for communities to 
understand and define the problems they face, 
such as the existence of increasing inequalities 
in marginalised communities, and to facilitate 
social change.  Managing this tension created 
from pressures from above and below requires 
the practitioner to work within these 
contradictions and to renegotiate the landscape 
and challenge where necessary.  
 
One of the strengths of the book is that it 
critically discusses the tensions and 
contradictions which exist within the current 
context and how these may play out in the 
future. Community development practitioners 
have always worked under constraints, but the 
shift from a confrontational/ campaigning role to 
a seat around the table within the partnership 
model has created further implications and 
greater pressure on workers to ensure the 
fulfilment of policy objectives. In exploring these 
tensions, Pichford and Henderson stress the 
importance of not losing sight of our role, if 
community workers are to remain „agents of 
social change‟ rather than become „agents of the 
state‟. The book recognises that community 
development is a political process and should 
not be regarded as a neutral activity.  
 
A key function of the book is to galvanise a 
debate in relation to, „where community 
development is today and where it is heading‟. 
Does the book achieve this? It certainly is 
thought provoking and encourages practitioners 
to critically reflect on their practice, re-assessing 
Concept Vol. 1 No. 1 2009    Reviews 
 
 
their aims and the direction of their work, from a 
national level to a project and individual 
practitioner level. The book is however rooted in 
the English context and although there are 
parallels to be drawn around the key issues for 
debate, such as the challenges currently faced 
the constraints of agency upon structure (eg 
government top-down emphasis on capacity 
building) my minor criticism is that it would have 
been useful to draw from some Scottish 
experiences to create a more balanced 
resource, particularly for those practitioners who 
are still engaged at a community, as opposed to 
a regional, level. There are plenty of them out 
there I‟m sure!  
 
In terms of where community development is 
heading, the book explores the implications of 
the shift to partnership and in particular the 
current model, Community Planning, and 
analyses the implications for current policy and 
practice. The book poses some key questions: 
can communities influence strategic decision 
making, and are social justice, poverty and 
inequality still key priorities for marginalised 
communities within this model? The resounding 
answer is no, although the book highlights that it 
is still possible when communities recognise the 
need to negotiate, and not just discuss, at a 
neighbourhood partnership level in order to 
maximise their influence and help set the 
agenda.  
 
There are numerous resources available which 
provide a historical context in relation to 
community development between1968 (the year 
referred to as the beginning of the „Golden Age‟) 
and the present. However, this book does offer 
more! The reflections and experiences of 
practitioners who have worked within the field 
over a long period permeate the book, and 
usefully draw from the past to the present in a 
way which informs future practice. The book 
clearly sets out the tensions and opportunities 
for community development for the times ahead, 
and although these may well have been 
analysed within other books, „Making Spaces for 
Community Development‟ is written in an 
encouraging way that manages to create some 
optimism for the future by arguing for the need to 
exploit those tensions and reconnect with both 
people and politics, rather than just uncritically 
responding to policy.  
 
Overall I feel the book achieves what it claims to 
do, encouraging debate and reflective practice. 
As the title suggests „Making Spaces for 
Community Development‟ is the focus of the 
book, suggesting the need for community 
development workers to engage critically with 
the current context to redress the mantra of 
„delivery‟ which prevails within the current 
context. The book conveys the clear message 
that as practitioners we have to create space if 
we want to support marginalised communities 
effectively to push the boundaries towards a 
social justice agenda, otherwise community 
development will continue to be weakened or 
even lost within the „professionalisation of the 
profession‟. Reading the book reaffirmed my 
own sense of personal responsibility as a 
practitioner within the field and I would 
recommend the book to students and 
practitioners as a useful resource to reflect on, 
and inform, practice.  
 
Shaw, M (1997) Community work: Towards a 
radical paradigm for practice, The Scottish 
Journal of Community Work and Development, 
Vol 2 
 
 
Claire Watt 
Deputy Manager, North Edinburgh Trust 
 


Making Spaces for Community Development’

Book reviewThe Spirit Level:  Why more equal societies almost always do better.  Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.  Allen lane, London, 200

Hewlett, Nigel

Concept Vol. 1 No. 1   Reviews 
 
Book Review  
The Spirit Level:   
Why more equal societies almost 
always do better. 
 
Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.   
Allen lane, London, 2009.   
 
 Epidemiologists Wilkinson and Pickett 
address the issue of inequality with a purely 
empirical question:  among the wealthier 
countries of the world, do those that are more 
equal tend to perform better on measures of the 
well-being of their populations?  The authors 
describe their approach as "evidence-based 
politics", by analogy with evidence-based 
medicine.  
 Firstly, they establish that, among the 
wealthier countries of the world (roughly, those 
with average annual incomes of more that 
18000 dollars), greater wealth is not associated 
with greater well-being, although among the 
less wealthy countries it is.   
  For their main study, they took the 50 
wealthiest countries of the world and first 
excluded all those with populations of less than 
three million or on which there were no data on 
income inequality.  This left 23 countries in all, 
including the USA, Canada, Australia, New 
Zealand, Greece, Israel, Singapore and most of 
the countries of western Europe and 
Scandinavia.  They compared each country's 
level of inequality with its performance on 
various indicators of social well-being such as 
life expectancy, homicide rates, teenage 
pregnancies, infant mortality and educational 
attainment, in order to test the hypothesis that 
greater inequality is associated with poorer 
performance.  On measure after measure, they 
show that more equal countries do better, less 
equal countries do worse.  They repeated the 
study, using a similar method, on the 50 states 
within the USA and obtained similar results.  
 This book is written for a lay audience 
and we are spared most of the statistical 
technicalities. The measure of inequality used 
in the main study was the gap between the 
richest 20% and the poorest 20% of the 
population.  We are told of other standard 
measures (I like the idea of the Robin Hood 
Index, which is the proportion of a country's 
wealth which would have to be taken from the 
rich and given to the poor in order to achieve 
perfect equality!) but the authors claim that 
they make little difference to the outcome.  The 
standard presentation used is a scatter plot, in 
which the score of each country on some 
measure, like obesity rate, is plotted over its 
score on inequality.   
A plot showing a summary of the results 
on ten of the measures, scored as an 'Index of 
health and social problems', is reproduced here 
as Figure 1.  
 
Figure 1.  A scatter plot of 'Health and social 
problems' over inequality, for 21 of the 23 
wealthy countries (Israel and Singapore are 
excluded for lack of data on some measures).  
From The Spirit Level, p20 (Figure 2.2). 
The vertical axis is the index value and the 
horizontal axis is inequality.  The solid line is 
the line of best fit through the scatter of points.  
Concept Vol. 1 No. 1   Reviews 
 
It is obvious that there is a strong correlation:  
the more unequal a country is, the worse it 
tends to score on the index. Since this is a 
summary, the correlation emerges particularly 
strongly.  However, on all such graphs for the 
individual measures (there are some 50 of them 
in the book), the existence of a similar 
correlation is obvious at a glance. 
 The UK is the fourth most unequal of 
the 23 countries, after Singapore (the most 
unequal but for which there are no data on 
some measures), the USA and Portugal.  On 
most measures it performs accordingly, that is, 
rather badly.  Japan is the most equal, followed 
by Finland, Norway and Sweden and these 
countries all perform predictably and 
consistently well. 
 It seems plausible that low status is bad 
for your health and morale and that in a 
strongly stratified society it is even worse.  
There is an interesting exploration of the 
connection between violence, in particular, and  
low status, with a view to explaining the higher 
crime rates of more unequal societies.  
However, generally the issue is more 
complicated than merely explaining the 
negative effects of lower status, since inequality 
has its effect on all social classes. A steeper 
inequality gradient is associated with poorer 
performance, even for the upper echelons of 
society.  For example, the bar chart reproduced 
here as Figure 2 shows that there are higher 
death rates among men of working age in 
England and Wales than in Sweden and this 
holds true within every social class.  
 
  The relationship between equality and 
well-being is not just one of association but one 
of causality. This is conclusively demonstrated 
over several closely-argued pages (pp187-193) 
in which it is shown that if all the different 
pieces of correlation evidence are taken in 
combination they are sufficient to establish the 
existence of a causal relationship.  
  
Figure 2.  Death rates of working-age men in 
England and Wales as compared with those in 
Sweden.  From The Spirit Level, p183 (Figure 
13.3). 
 
    Why are humans susceptible in this 
way to the equality level of the society in which 
they live? Except with respect to the discussion 
of violence, mentioned above, the title of the 
book over-reaches in promising an answer to 
this question.  I should have thought that the 
best approach to it would be to undertake fine-
grained investigations of the background to 
some of the existing statistical findings.  For 
example, what is the chain of causation which 
increases the likelihood of death among 
working-age males of high status in England 
and Wales as compared with Sweden?  Does 
the steeper inequality gradient in England and 
Wales produce in those of high status some 
kind of toxic physiological effect, due to a 
greater fear and loathing of those beneath them, 
for example?  Or might it be that dedication and 
skill levels are higher in carers and the caring 
professions in more equal societies, resulting in 
better quality care for the sick?  It would have 
been interesting to read such hypotheses 
(doubtless more well-informed than these 
examples) for testing in a proposed programme 
of future research and it would have been in the 
spirit of the evidence-based politics the authors 
Concept Vol. 1 No. 1   Reviews 
 
espouse. 
 Instead, they switch to a broad focus, 
much of it with a view to convincing us that 
human nature includes the potential for 
egalitarian styles of social interaction.  To this 
end, they cherry-pick evidence from 
anthropology, evolution psychology, 
experimental psychology and biology.  We 
learn the results of some experimental 
economic game-playing and that Stone Age 
societies were egalitarian.  The centre-piece of 
this part of the book is a discussion of the 
contrasting social interaction styles of 
chimpanzees and bonobos.  Chimpanzees are 
the villains of the piece, using large quantities 
of violence to maintain their highly stratified 
social structures; bonobos, on the other hand, 
are egalitarians, who use food-sharing and large 
quantities of sex.  It is unclear what this is 
supposed to prove.  At one point there is a 
reference to a claim that we share some relevant 
piece of DNA with bonobos rather than 
chimpanzees.  This would be good news but 
actually their argument turns out to be that we 
have inherited from our primate ancestry the 
potential for both status driven and egalitarian 
modes of interaction, the implication being that 
we should cultivate our bonobo side at the 
expense of our chimp side.  It is all quite 
entertaining but I have to say it reminded me 
more of Gulliver's Travels than a theory to be 
taken at face value. 
 This criticism is trivial enough, when 
weighed in the balance against the enormous 
significance of the rest of the book.  The 
evidence in it implies that greater progressive 
taxation or a narrowing of income ranges would 
be both necessary and sufficient to improve the 
UK's performance on health, education and a 
range of social issues.  This is doubtless 
anathema to the political right but their only 
legitimate recourse is (as with climate change 
theory or evolution by natural selection) to 
engage in a debate on the science.   Bring it on! 
 
Nigel Hewlett 
Honorary Senior Research Fellow 
School of Social Science, Media and 
Communication 
Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh 


The Spirit Level

In 2009, Amnesty International’s ‘At the Festival’ campaign focussed on Dr. Binayak Sen’s case to add international pressure to the call for the release of an innocent man.  Events were held at the Edinburgh Festival, the West End Festival in Glasgow, the Aberdeen Writers Festival, Leith Festival, the Big Tent Festival in Fife and Knochengorroch Festival in Dumfriesshire, culminating in a weekend event in Glasgow in September.  To find out more about how you can add your support to the campaign or about any of these events visit our website at www.amnesty.org.uk/scotlandAfter this article was accepted, Dr Sen was released from prison on medical grounds although the charges against him still stand and his freedom of movement is curtailed. The campaign for justice for Binayak Sen, supported by Amnesty International, continues

Not a member yet