Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Dependency paradigm
In the 1960s the modernisation paradigm with its ethnocentric perspective on development was challenged by Latin American social scientists, and a theory dealing with dependency and underdevelopment, the dependency paradigm, was born. This dependency approach formed part of a general structuralist orientation in the social sciences. The dependency theorists were primarily concerned with the effects of dependency on peripheral countries. Implicit in their analysis was the idea that development and underdevelopment must be understood in the context of the world system (Servaes, 1996: 32). According to Servaes (1989:19), the dependency approach emerged from Latin America. The dependency theorists set to unravel the effects of the relationship of the periphery and the centre. This relationship is often seen among dependency theorists as the main cause of backwardness in the periphery. According to Servaes (1989: 21), dominant countries have technological, commercial, capital and sociopolitical predominance over dependent countries.
According to M’bayo (1995:78), the dependency paradigm views the condition of dependency as not only an outcome but also as the effect upon the developing countries, and of the imperialistic expansion of the advanced capitalist states. The dependency relationship takes the form of political, economic, military, media and cultural imperialism. M’bayo (1995:79) further states that the penetration of Third World countries by multinational corporations, the political objectives and foreign aid policies of developed countries in the international market and credit systems are all seen as aspects of the dependency phenomenon. Most studies that consider the impact of the cultural aspects of the Third World countries do not go beyond quantitative aspects. They mainly show how much information, entertainment, advertising, capital and hardware flows between societies and media institutions. These flows cause imbalances between the centre and the periphery nations, regions and countries, between rural and urban and between rural and poor (Servaes, 1996: 34). The process of development is therefore analysed in terms of relations between regions, central and peripheral.
The dependency paradigm stresses that the most important obstacles to development are external to the underdeveloped nations. They also believed that due to the fact that the periphery is deprived of its surplus, development in the centre implies under development in the periphery. The dependency theorists also place emphasis on that it is necessary for a peripheral country to dissociate itself from the world market and strive for selfreliance (Servaes, 1996:84). The practicality of peripheral countries’ dissociation from developed countries is questionable when one considers that Third World countries do not have most of the resources which are central to their development and transformation.
The peripheral countries’ dependence is therefore based upon the international division of labour that allows industrial development to take place in some countries while restricting it in others. The dependency theorists thus maintain that the most important hindrances to development are not the shortage of capital or management, as the modernisation theorists contend, but must be sought in the present international system (Servaes, 1989:21). The obstacles for development are therefore not internal, but external. This also means that the development in the centre maintains underdevelopment in the periphery.
Multiplicity paradigm
Contrary to modernization and dependency theories, the third paradigm emerged, the multiplicity paradigm. It emphasized that there is no universal path to development, and that development must be conceived of as an integral part, multidimensional process that can differ from one country to another. It also implies that the problem of development is a relative one and no part of the world can claim to be developed in all aspects. This paradigm defined development as a needoriented, endogenous, selfreliant, ecologically sound and based on participatory democracy and structural transformation (Servaes, 1996: 32). It therefore encourages the involvement and participation of the recipients in the conception of development messages, and implementation of development policies and projects.
This new approach to development has emerged from the criticism of the modernization and dependency paradigms. The main starting point of the multiplicity paradigm is an examination of the changes from a bottomup perspective and from the perspective of selfdevelopment of the local community.
The basic assumption is that no nation functions completely autonomously and is completely selfsufficient, nor is there any nation whose development is exclusively determined by external factors. It can therefore be concluded that every community is in one way or another dependent (Servaes, 1996:86). According to Servaes (1989:31), the starting point of this paradigm is the examination of the changes from “bottom up”, that is, from the selfdevelopment of the local community.
According to Gooch (1995:90), since independence, emerging African nations have viewed the adoption of modern communication technology as a vital development to social development. The early efforts to develop media systems in newly independent African countries were widely based on the Western diffusionist or modernisation models of development that presents communication technology as the main mechanism to enhance socioeconomic development.
The problem with diffusionist approach was that Westernbased media strategies that disparage the very social institutions that strengthen traditional channels of communication have not yet yielded meaningful results for African development (Gooch, 1995:93). As a result of such limitations, calls have been made to place emphasis on the integration of diverse national development objectives and active participation of multisectoral groups in communication policy and planning (Gooch, 1996:96).
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 NEED FOR THE STUDY
1.3 RESEARCH PROBLEM
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.5 UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STUDY
1.6 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
1.7 CONCEPTUALISATION
1.8 OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS
CHAPTER 2: PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CONCEPT “DEVELOPMENT”
2.3 THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION
2.4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION
2.5 FACTORS THAT AFFECT PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION
2.6 WHAT IS NEEDED FOR PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TO SUCCEED
2.7 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3: STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION: THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SYSTEM (GCIS)
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PROCESS
3.3 GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SYSTEM (GCIS)
3.4 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF THE IMBIZO COMMUNICATION STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCANNING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
4.3 IMPORTANCE OF A COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
4.4 COMMUNICATION STRATEGY FRAMEWORKS: EXAMPLES
4.5 IMBIZO AS A STRATEGY FOR PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION
4.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOLOGY
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
5.3 MOTIVATION FOR THE CHOICE OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.4 CONTENT ANALYSIS
5.5 FIELD RESEARCH
5.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS OF THE STUDY
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
6.3 COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
6.4 LANGUAGE USAGE
6.5 SUMMARY OF IMBIZO VIDEOTAPES
6.6 NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS
6.7 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
6.8 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
7.3 AIMS OF THE STUDY
7.4 RESEARCH METHODS USED IN THE STUDY
7.5 SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
7.6 CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY
7.7 RECOMMENDATIONS
7.8 CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
