Discussing 'New Book: DEVELOPMENT, LIVELIHOOD AND EMPOWERMENT' in the Publishing group

Discussions: New Book: DEVELOPMENT, LIVELIHOOD AND EMPOWERMENT

New Book: DEVELOPMENT, LIVELIHOOD AND EMPOWERMENT

Started by GSJP, Monday, July 14 2008. Last post Monday, July 14 2008.

TITLE: DEVELOPMENT, LIVELIHOOD AND EMPOWERMENT: Towards a Sustainable Paradigm Based on Micro-level Reflections of Decentralisation and People’s Planning in Kerala
AUTHOR: S GREGORY
PUBLISHER: Institute for Research in Social Sciences and Humanities (IRISH)
YEAR: 2008
HARD COVER: xvi + 286 pages
DIMENSION: 9.3 x 6.3 x 1.2 inches
ISBN: 81-88432-14-8
PRICE: Rs 600/- 60USD; 40EUR;
CONTENTS: Foreword: xiii; I Introduction 1; II Area Profile 23; III Decentralisation and People’s Planning 41; IV Mainstreaming Women 97; V People’s Participation 121; VI Participatory Field View 141; VII Impact and Empowerment 167; VIII Poverty, Development and Livelihood 195; IX Postscript: Lessons and Learnings 217; References 227; Appendix: ‘Bullet Point Cases’ 235; Index 273
ABOUT THE BOOK:
The book is based on the study carried out with the objective to understand the nature of participation of the people in the process of democratic decentralisation in Kerala through the People’s Planning programme, the nature, and impact of the Programmes on the livelihood pattern of the weaker sections, and the extent of their empowerment in the process of its operation. In the light of such analysis, it was also intended to look into the concept of poverty itself within the sustainable development and livelihood paradigm. The study was undertaken in Dharmadam Panchayat in Kannur District, with specific focus on the weaker sections, namely, the Scheduled Castes, BPL families and the women. Household Survey and Interviews were carried out, Case Studies were collected, and the participatory tools were applied in understanding the processes and the patterns concerning planning, participation, empowerment, and livelihood vis-à-vis the weaker sections.
As for the nature of the programmes, there had been several innovative measures and integrated schemes identified and implemented in the productive, service and infrastructural sectors, addressing to the needs of the individual, family, group, community and the locality. However, there had also been several oft-repeated and same-old schemes which had been handy but lacking the wisdom of the people and scientific projection and follow up. For the same reason, such programmes had failed to sustain their intended objectives, and remained a short-term focus, without any long-term impact. With regard to participation, the term itself is pregnant with multiple understandings, meanings, and interpretations, depending on the ideological leanings and orientations. Genuine participation implies a sense of ownership and an assumption of responsibility for one’s own livelihood system and collective social life. In the context of People’s Planning, participation became the buzzword for a genuine decentralised development, manifesting a political will for its achievement. The task was initiated under the banner of people’s campaign with the objective to have ‘informed participation’ leading to ‘informed choices’. The study indicates that the ‘Gram Sabha’ of the first year of the plan period was lively with great expectations. A greater enthusiasm got reflected in the subsequent Gram Sabha, meant for the initiation of the programme implementation. However, in the course of the process, the whole exercise had turned out to be programme-driven, with the participation dimension taking a back seat. Nevertheless, the entire process, with greater transparency in the identification of the programmes and of the beneficiaries, with a more or less scientific approach, had a touch of the common people, to a considerable extent. It had also paved the way for the people to know more about the programmes and be knowledgeable about some of the development initiatives in the neighbourhood. However, it had also imposed a sense of exclusion and inclusion, especially along the lines of BPL and non-BPL, even among the people of the same locality, the same being reflected in the neighbourhoods (Ayalkoottams) too. Moreover, there had always been people who point their fingers out with cynical criticism without extending the benefit of their participation and wisdom.
A propos the impact of the programmes, the major achievement had been in the improvement of the physical conditions of living, especially of the people belonging to weaker sections, which had been made possible through housing and sanitation programmes. However, there are quite a few cases, encountering difficulties either in availing the benefits, or in completing the availed benefits. As for the livelihood security, though several efforts had been initiated to enhance the skills and opportunities, such efforts had not been channelised properly, and had been lacking clear vision and future follow-ups. There had also been initiatives to increase the productive opportunities of the people, which also had to face similar fate with a few exceptions. Asset creation had been successful to a limited extent, especially in the case of women, under Kudumbasree programmes. The women collectives had definitely helped in raising the self-confidence among women, though only to a limited extent, as it had not gone quite far, in undertaking new initiatives or pursuing the same further, gauging the requirements and demands of the people and in establishing productive linkages. As regards the concept of poverty, the available tools and measures of criterion, and policy approaches indicate that the concept of poverty is neither properly understood nor genuinely applied in envisioning and enhancing sustainable development. The understanding of poverty within a sustainable livelihood-empowerment paradigm leads to fresh alternatives involving a kind of neutral assessment of one’s living conditions within the framework of the ‘Livelihood Security’ (LS). This would necessarily involve not only the deprivational aspect on the lower level but also the appopriational aspect on the higher level, both of which are undesirable in a sustainable development paradigm. Such an understanding has given way to the development of a new five-point scale to capture the living conditions with reference to six different dimensions in the livelihood-empowerment paradigm and pointed to the desirability of moving towards the mid point for achieving a sustainable development.
Overall, the study reveals that the decentralised People’s Planning had been a kind of silent revolution among the people of Kerala, as reflected in the plan activities of the Panchayat, corresponding to the Ninth Plan Period. However, it had not been made possible to reach its logical end, mainly due to the lack of clear understanding and objectives of the process by all the concerned, and the lack of political will during the latter years, leading to its sliding down from its original initiative and orientation.
The book primarily aims at academicians, researchers and other personnel including the development administrators, planners and implementers, who are all interested in development themes. It is believed that it would be useful to anthropologists, sociologists, economists, political scientists and other social scientists, and all those who are interested in the issues of poverty, decentralisation, livelihood, empowerment, and sustainable development. It is also expected that it would appeal to the level of research and theory-building and cater to the needs of the PG level social science students, and research scholars as well. It would particularly be a valuable source of reference for students of Development Anthropology, Development Sociology, and Applied Economics, and for students of political science especially with particular reference to Decentralised Governance.
From the Foreword by Dr Richard W. Franke, Professor of Anthropology, Montclair State University:
‘Dr S Gregory has provided us with a window into the inner workings of the PPC. His detailed account of the circumstances and experiences of several households, belonging to weaker sections including the sc, shows a range of attitudes and responses; of participation, alienation, enthusiasm, cynicism, of all the characteristics we might expect when local communities become enmeshed in large scale social change.’
‘Dr. Gregory’s anthropological approach brings rich ethnographic detail to the otherwise dry if necessary state-wide statistics about achievements and shortcomings of the PPC. Furthermore, he shows how in Dharmadam Panchayat, the attempts to improve life for the BPL and the SC households interacted directly and indirectly with the campaign to involve women in their own advancement.’
About the Author:
• Dr S Gregory joined the Department of Anthropology, Calicut University (now under Kannur University), as Lecturer in November 1994, and is working as Reader in the same Department, since 2003. He Had worked at the Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Bangalore, for five years since 1989, in the World Bank sponsored Beneficiary Assessment of National Sericulture Project (BA of NSP). He had his MA and MPhil in Anthropology in Poona University and Madras University respectively; Ph D from ISEC, Bangalore, through the IDS, Mysore University in 2001. He had co-authored nine project reports, as part of the BA of NSP. He had completed one major project on Decentralisation in Kerala, under the Kerala Research Programme on Local Level Development (KRPLLD), Centre for Development Studies (CDS), Thiruvananthapuram. He had guided, so far, more than 40 MA dissertations, one MPhil dissertation, and guiding seven Ph D researches on various development-oriented issues.
• He had published more than 50 scholarly articles including more than 35 research articles, covering a wide range of areas, such as tribal studies, social issues, agro-industry, decentralisation, development, education etc.
• He had Participated in more than 60 conferences, seminars and workshops including more than ten international ones, and presented so far, more than 40 research papers; organised workshops and seminars including international
• He is the Associate Editor, Journal of the Institute for Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, a refereed Bi-annual journal.
• He is a member, Faculty of Social Sciences, and Board of Studies in Anthropology; Deputy Co-ordinator of the UGC Special Assistance Programme (SAP) of the Department. He is Closely associated with student activities, and organised several programmes, under different capacities as NSS Programme Officer (1996-2002), Department Students Union (DSU) Staff Advisor (1997-2006, 2007-08), Staff Editor (1996-2003), and Fine Arts Advisor (1997-2006). He is instrumental in the introduction of Anthropology at the Higher Secondary level in Kerala, a pioneering effort even at the all India level. He continuously associates with SCERT and the Directorate of Higher Secondary Education in the capacity as subject-expert in Anthropology, in curriculum and syllabus formulation, and other associated works since 2000.
• He is one of the founding members of the Participatory Learning and Action NETwork-Kerala (PLANET-Kerala). He is a Life Member in the Indian Science Congress Association (ISCA), Indian National Confederation and Academy of Anthropologists (INCAA), Indian Academy of Social Sciences (IASS), Society for Indian Medical Anthropology (SIMA), Indian Sociological Society (ISS), Mangalore Sociology Association (MSA); Associate Fellow in the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bangalore; Sectional Committee Member of the Section on Anthropology and Behavioural Sciences of the 95th Indian Science Congress (2008); Governing Board Member of INCAA (2008-11); Chairman of the District level Special Technical Advisory Group for TSP (Tribal Sub-Plan) on Poverty reduction, Development of Women and Children, and Social Security including Care of the Aged and Disabled, for the XI FYP.
• He has to his credit several articles in various journals and in edited volumes, on tribal studies, social issues, agro-industry, decentralisation, development, education etc.
About the Publisher:
Institute for Research in Social Sciences and Humanities (IRISH) is the research wing of the Malabar Educational Society for Human Resource Development and Research (MESHAR), registered under the Government of India (Reg. No.277/2000). It has been recognised as a centre for research in Social Sciences and Humanities by Kannur University. It is set up with the avowed aim of bringing together scholars on a common platform to share the results of their researches and to disseminate the information to the public through conferences, seminars and publications in the form of occasional papers, monographs and refereed journal. The institute endeavours to cut across the limited identities of caste, creed, class and political affiliations in order to promote inter-disciplinary Researches in Social Sciences and Humanities.
www.irish-meshar.org
For further details contact: gregorys3@gmail.com

Shelfari: The Site for Books & Readers

Publishing

Discussions: New Book: DEVELOPMENT, LIVELIHOOD AND EMPOWERMENT