What Is This Chapter About?
This chapter begins by providing a brief overview of the African rural development planning landscape. A definition of rural development follows as does a justification for the choice of themes presented. The approach adopted to prepare this book is spelt out in detail and a brief outline summary of the findings of each chapter is given.
What Characterizes the African Rural Development Planning Landscape?
There are several policy contexts, theoretical models and strategic approaches that have guided the planning of rural development in Africa . To begin with, it is noted that Africa’s population of over 1.1 billion people mostly live in rural areas (UN, 2013). Although remaining mostly rural, it is estimated that the number of people living in urban settlements will increase from 40 per cent in 2010 to 62 per cent in 2050 (UN, 2010). This is because it is expected that, in contrast to world population trends, Africa’s rising rural population will eventually reach 0.8 billion by 2050 and two African countries out of only five countries in the world will actually have growing rural populations (UN, 2010). Moreover, Africa’s urban population will become the second largest in the world (UN, 2010). This is a sobering thought given that all these people, including those living in rural and urban areas, have to be fed through agricultural activity, which is essentially rural-based. Planning for this high concentration of people in rural areas in Africa remains important even though considerable attention still needs to be given to the ever-increasing urban population.
Development, without specifically incorporating rural development planning, was for long looked at as having an economic growth dimension (Seers, 1972). This situation no longer exists because the definition and scope of the analysis of development have evolved over time following a sustained critique of the then dominant economic perspective and proposals by scholars such as Rodney (1981), Frank (1966, 1967) and Sen (1999) for alternative and complementary perspectives. In the case of rural development planning, scholars such as Chambers (1983, 2005a) have been at the forefront in challenging the dominant ivory tower approach by proposing a participatory model to rural planning. It is largely due to these engaging scholarly efforts that theorists and practitioners today concur that an accurate description and interpretation should accommodate striving for economic , social and ecological change in terms of better social standards of life, human improvement and environmental protection rather than just economic growth (Gabriel, 1991). It is a process that unfolds, thus leading to improvement, use and redeployment of resources , and acknowledging that political choices have to be made. Rural development planning therefore should integrate economic , social and ecological aspects to create better and more secure livelihoods for rural and urban people.
Strategies to enhance rural development should acknowledge people as the key factor. A model of the basic livelihoods framework (Ellis & Freeman, 2005, p. 4) captures the link between rural livelihoods , government and donors as each focus on poverty reduction. It is based on empirical research done in eastern and southern Africa. Acknowledging that the livelihoods approach strives to be people-centred and holistic, it highlights the fact that ‘people make a living within evolving social , institutional, political, economic and environmental contexts’ (Ellis & Freeman, 2005, p. 5). By applying this method, significant observations emerge that would affect the growth and development of agriculture and other sectors of rural areas. Attention is drawn to assets: including activities (near and distant) and outcomes, as the core issue of investment; human capital (skills, education and health ) links to policies; and physical natural capital (land , water, trees) links to land use, agricultural and environmental policies. Financial capital as the physical impetus to the economic arm of the human organization in space (produced investment goods) and social capital (networks and associations such as kinship ties and traditional culture practices) form the cornerstone of modern living. However, overriding influences come from policies, institutionalized laws and rights and accommodating the ideals of democracy in a range of circumstances worldwide. Equally significant is the risk factor involved in making a living that stems from the flow of internal and external sources as shocks, trends and the effects of seasonality. Livelihood outcomes relate to material welfare (better or worse), reduced or increased vulnerability to food security, and improving or degrading environmental resources . This framework clearly demonstrates the complex and changing character of rural livelihoods in a general context and acknowledges how people’s use of both land and available resources are some form of agricultural activity.
There are other approaches to rural development, especially agriculture, that have been utilized. Systems approaches, decision-making models and structural-historical interpretation through participatory investigations since the 1990s have drawn attention to a range of socio-political and economic innuendos. Specifically identified concerns are about equity with regard to poverty , gender and development, employment and income, food and health as well as access to public goods and services . Studies chose to work at micro-level within the ambit of macro-policy to find ways to promote human and environmental sustainability in the long term. Foundational approaches, inter alia rapid rural appraisal (Chambers, 2005b), participatory rural appraisal (Chambers, 2005b), farming systems research, structural adjustment programmes, micro-credit, free markets , stakeholder analysis and poverty reduction have extended knowledge of the farmer on the small farm to a broader focus on the community and its households. Asset-based community development and its expansion into recognition of the spatial aspect used in community asset mapping programmes (Nicolau, 2012) are bringing a wider perspective to the human dimension in rural development. Sustainable livelihoods are to replace small farm dominance but the concept has been useful to effect the change from top-down to bottom-up , a necessary developmental move. Ellis and Biggs (2001, p. 445) made this prophetic assumption at the turn of the century:
If a new paradigm of rural development is to emerge, it will be one in which agriculture takes its place along with a host of other actual and potential rural and non-rural activities that are important to the construction of viable rural livelihoods … It is in this sense that cross-sectoral and multi-occupational diversity of rural livelihoods may need to become the cornerstone of rural development policy.
Considering Africa’s demographic dynamics regarding population distribution, composition, change and migration with its associated politico-economic developments, and being mindful of environmental care, this could well become a reality. As noted in the preceding paragraphs, rural areas in Africa do not exist in isolation. There is a strong rural-urban linkage through migration, financial flows, property ownership and information sharing. A growing number of people in Africa live in urban areas. Some of them are beginning to look at urban areas as their ‘natural’ home. There are also African people who live outside their original countries in Asian, European, Arab and other African countries. This group, often referred to as the African diaspora, has maintained varied levels of links with rural Africa. There are also a number of people from other continents who have migrated to Africa, and live in both rural and urban Africa. Some of them look to Africa as their home. The African rural development landscape thus has many people related to it by birth, migration, residence, marriage, work and several other linkages.
What happens in African rural areas is not just an outcome of decisions and actions taken by those who live in these areas. It is also influenced by the decisions and actions of several people and institutions far away from these rural areas. African rural areas exist within an intricate web of relationships at different social , administrative and spatial scales. It is this striking and beautiful, yet rich mosaic of the African development planning landscape and relations within it that begs an invitation that we, together with the other contributors to this book, have accepted. The written word from diverse sources and thinking processes has been read and summarised for enjoyment, and to extend the knowledge base about Africa’s rural people.
Why Synthesize African Rural Development Planning Knowledge?
Any reader would be justified to ask a question such as: ‘What does a book based on a synthesis of African rural development planning knowledge add to the existing development literature?’ As editor and contributors to this book, we also had a similar question. We had assumed that several studies that had been conducted on Afri...