Content-Type: text/html A Case for a Paradigm Shift A Case for a Paradigm Shift and a New Theory in Development Communication Scholarship. by Samuel Chege Mwangi Ph.D. Candidate College of Journalism and Mass Communication University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208 Contact Info: 6242 Corbly Road # 16 Cincinnati, OH 45230 Tel (513) 231-0618 E-mail: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask] Paper submitted to the International Communication Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication for the annual convention in Florida, August 7-10, 2002 In his classic text, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn argues that science makes radical changes in its philosophy or basic assumptions under the stimulus of new discoveries. He argues that well-established theories collapse under the weight of new facts and observations to the point where those theories become obsolete and require a paradigm shift or a new way of thinking. This paper argues that current theories in development communication scholarship are at odds with observed reality in developing countries and calls for a paradigm shift in the discipline. The paper makes this case by tracing the evolution of development communication, the theories that have shaped the field and the paradigm shifts that have occurred along the way. It points out that the discipline has consistently failed to recognize the role that nature of governance or political climate plays in shaping the success or failure of development projects in developing countries. The paper further points out that ordinary peasants, who are the intended beneficiaries of development communication projects, and donors, appear to be ahead of development communication scholars in recognizing the constrictive effects that bad governance has on development communication efforts. This is best illustrated by events that have taken place in developing countries in the last decade. The 1990s may be known as the democratization decade. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War unleashed a wave of democracy in countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America (Ayitteh, 1992; Monga 1996). These countries, which had hitherto been under military regimes or civilian dictatorships, experienced transformational changes in governance that saw the emergence of multi-party political systems, an expanded public sphere, a relatively free media and civil society organizations (Ntalaja and Lee 1997; Bratton and Walle,1997). The changes had both external and internal causes. Externally, lending institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and donor nations, pegged their lending policies to the implementation of democratic governance in developing nations that could be held more accountable for their development policies and allocation of resources (World Bank, 1991). Internally, a wave of protests, demonstrations and unrests by populations that had been impoverished by bad and unaccountable governance rocked these countries as citizens demanded more responsible and democratic governments capable of improving their standards of living (Monga, 1996). The results were the transformation of the political landscape in many developing countries in the 90s. In light of these events, and the centrality of the question of development as the reason for these changes, this paper argues that the events pointed to the redundancy of existing development communication theories and challenged the research focus of this discipline that currently locates its research interests in the intermediary sphere between development project planners and beneficiaries. The paper further argues that a paradigm shift ought to have occurred in the 1970s when it became clear that poor governance, which invariably breeds poor development policies, was directly to blame for continued underdevelopment in developing countries. In making this case, the paper examines theoretical concepts of development communication scholarship right from its inception to its present stage highlighting the issues that drove this field, the paradigm shifts that occurred along the way and its present concerns. It also illustrates that while development communication appeared to have had an initial interest in democratic governance, such an interest was either poorly conceived or was overtaken by the more urgent concern for economic development. Srinivas Melktote, a development communications scholar, has argued that it may be time to reconceptualize the whole field of development communication. In what he calls the social systems change model, he says that what is needed is not just to provide the necessary information to the people or to give them a platform to air their voices but rather what is urgently needed is for development communication practitioners to serve the role of organizing agents (Melkote, 2000). These agents would help the people organize and take charge of their own destiny and be able to access resources and opportunities. Melkote does not give an example of how exactly that should be done but argues that there is no way that we can expect the people to participate in development when they have no power over policy. This paper takes this argument further and attempts to provide some elements that would inform a paradigm shift and a new theory. Development communication refers to the initiative of applying communication to the process of development with the end goal of improving the quality of life of developing societies (Ashcroft & Masilela, 1994). This type of communication is not only essential for cultural communication and change but also important in the introduction of new ideas to the mass population. It plays an important role in the change of attitudes, behavior, opinions and in the acculturation process. Because it is communication with a social conscience, development communication is heavily oriented towards man, that is, towards the human aspect of development (Moemeka, 1996). Development communication scholarship traces its roots to the publication of Daniel Lerner's classic book, The Passing of the Traditional Society, in 1959. The book was based on years of research that Lerner had conducted in North Africa and the Middle East in which he was able to trace correlations between expanded economic activity and other modernization variables such as urbanization, high literacy levels, media consumption and political development (voting). He argued that the media could serve as a great multiplier of development by communicating development messages to its readers. The book is important to this research for it marked the first time that a theoretical concept was supplied to development communication explaining the possible relationship between development and communication. It was also the first development communication text to mention political development as a crucial part of development. But Lerner, unfortunately, equated political development with "vo ting." While the societies he was studying were largely under autocratic rule, he did not find it necessary to link good governance to development. Neither did he explain under what circumstances or institutions voting would be conducted. One possible reason for this omission was perhaps that Lerner was more concerned in explaining how development occurs and in tracing economic activities, their origins and how these led to a shift from traditional modes of production to an industrial one. In 1963, Lucian Pye published the book, Media and Political Development, which argued that there was a positive correlation between an increased exposure to media messages and participation in politics. But the book's focus, like Lerner's, was extremely limited as it tended to focus on voters participation in elections and did not adequately address other issues that would have been of importance to both the development communication field or to developing societies that were then becoming independent from colonial rule. These two books mark the only time in the 60s that development communication scholars came closely to addressing the issue of governance. From then on the focus was to shift radically to economic concerns and remain so until the 1990s. Drawing from the study by Daniel Lerner, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) commissioned renown development communication scholar, Wilbur Schramm, to try and find out the exact place and role that the media played in development. The result of this study was the monumental book, Media and National Development, published in 1964, which provided the solid theoretical foundations for development communication for the next decade and a half. The text had a narrow concept of development limited mainly to income-generating endeavors. Schramm believed in the concept of an all powerful media that could be used by development and change agents to communicate messages about innovations, use of high yield seeds, or changes in daily habits that were a threat to health. This form of communication has come to be referred to as the dominant paradigm. It was an authoritarian and non-participatory approach that involved development agencies sending messages to a passive audience. It is perhaps no surprise that it did not incorporate issues of democratic governance since even in its own conception and practice it encouraged no such interactive participation from project beneficiaries. Schramm's theoretical conception of the media as the great multiplier of development was to receive a major boost from another scholar, Everett Rogers, who came up with the theory of the diffusion of innovations. Rogers argued that there appeared to be a pattern in the way that innovations were adopted and accepted in societies and that this pattern involved an innovation being first adopted by what he called "the opinion leaders" or early adopters, late adopters, early majority and late majority. Rogers further pointed out that based on this theoretical model, development communication scholars could try and introduce innovations such as high yield seeds, fertilizers and new farming methods using this approach and popularize these through the mass media. This was no minor contribution to development communication. Indeed, the World Bank and the United Nations Development Program embraced the theory wholeheartedly and funded thousands of what were called development extension proj ects, located in rural areas in developing countries, where trained agricultural officers would use media such as radio and also use opinion leaders to expose farmers to these innovations. Schramm's and Rogers's work provided the main theoretical focus of development communication in the 60s and early 70s. But they too had no interest in issues of good governance. To them what mattered at the time was how to transform the agrarian societies in the Third World to begin to adopt better methods of production. But Rogers's and Schramm's were not the only competing theories of the dominant paradigm. There was also the modernization theory and the socialist theory. The modernization theory recognized two societies namely the advanced and less advanced societies. It assumed that the problems of underdevelopment in the Third World could be solved by a mechanical duplication of the Western economic, technical and political systems in the Third World. It argued that the sure way to develop the Third World was to encourage industrial growth (Rostow,1960). This theory however ignored the cultural and historical peculiarities of Third World economies that would make industrialization an untenable solution for all developing countries. Among its negative effects was that it downplayed the role that agriculture played in these societies and instead sought to promote industrialization. There was therefore an unchecked rural-urban migration, which clogged Third World cities. Four decades after this theory was floated, several developing countries still have a faltering industrialization program. There was also the socialist theory that was in use in countries such as Tanzania and which was different from Schramm's or Roger's approach. The socialists believed that for societies to be able to develop, it was important to mobilize the people to a large labor force held together by ideology (Nyerere, 1969). The media in these societies were highly centralized structures of the state used for propaganda purposes and relied heavily on the dominant paradigm approach. Development was to be achieved through collective effort under the guidance of a single political party. The question of democratic governance did not feature anywhere in socialist pedagogy on development. Although there is no plausible explanation in the literature for this omission or discussion of issues of governance, there may be two possible explanations for it. First, most Third World countries gained their independence from colonial rule in the early 1960s, just as development communication was evolving as a discipline. The most apparent needs in these societies, as far as anyone could tell, were economic. The nature of political systems in these countries had not yet evolved. As such its omission from the literature, especially in the 1960s, is understandable. What is not excusable, though, is the continued omission of the same even in the 1970s when it was apparent that bad governance was largely to blame for misappropriation of foreign aid and poor development programs. A second possible explanation for this omission was that Western governments funded most development agencies such as USAID in USA and OXFAM in Britain. Writing in the Foreign Affairs journal (1998), political scientists Joel Barkan and David Gordon argue that this was the era of the Cold War and the development agenda was often driven by the political agenda. Countries received aid based on their strategic importance to the donor nations. Any issues that would upset the intricate balance of power were best kept under the rug. These would include any suggestions of restructuring of the political systems of Third World countries. They further argue that this was the reason why donor nations such as the USA continued to fund such countries as Zaire, which continually misappropriated vast amounts of foreign aid. However, compared to other fields such as political science or economics, development communication actually lags behind in terms of associating the problems of bad governance with underdevelopment in the Third World. A mere look at political science literature indicates clearly that these scholars have for the last fifteen years understood that bad governance plays an important role in undermining development programs especially in terms of adopting poor policies and misappropriation of resources (Ake, 1996; Chege, 1995; Rasheed, 1995; Monga, 1996; Bratton and Van de Walle, 1997), Ake (1996 ). Ake, a political scientist, argues that while there has been an overemphasis of the role of Non-Governmental organizations in Third World Development,the state can never be ignored in development studies because it is responsible for setting national policies, development policies, monetary policies and in performing other integral or auxiliary services, such as constructing communication infrastructures which are necessary for development. A major paradigm shift in development communication took place in 1975 when scholars met in Honolulu, Hawaii, to assess progress in the field. The main reason for the conference was that despite over fifteen years of development efforts using the dominant paradigm, poverty was still widespread in the Third world. The scholars therefore wanted to rethink their approach to development. The results of the conference are published in a book edited by Everett Rogers entitled: Development Communication: Critical Perspectives. The conference resolved that the dominant paradigm was not compatible with the development agenda and instead they should use a human-centered approach. This was a monumental shift that placed the people at the center of development. Unlike the previous dominant and top-down communication paradigm in use in the 60s and early 70s, the new approach was horizontal and encouraged participation, input from project beneficiaries and use of indigenous knowledge. And instead of Third World societies trying to follow the Western path to development, the scholars argued that there was no one way to development. Instead, the main focus and emphasis would be on participation and use of indigenous knowledge. Thus for the first time, terms such as empowerment, participation and grassroots mobilization, found their way into development communication literature and informed the design of development projects. But these terms referred to development projects on a project by project basis. In their conceptualization, they had nothing to do with participation of Third World citizens in the policy-making machinery of states. This was a critical omission. Two development scholars have argued that the conception of the terms empowerment and participation has remained one of the major constraints in the field of development. Agung a (1996) argues that for a people to be able to participate in development, such participation must extend beyond individual development projects and into the policy-making structures of government. Thus the system has to be democratic. Srinivas Melkote (2000) argues that what seems to be lacking in the Third World is access to resources and a platform for people to air their voices. Agunga's and Melkote's are the rare works that address the interconnection between development and participation in policy-making structures (at least remotely). Other scholars such as Dubey and De (1989), have argued that development involves an interplay between four spheres namely the economic, political, social and ecological and that the role of communication is to ensure that there is a balance between all four spheres. While their article initially promised to explicate on these four spheres, it ends up focusing more on sustainable development rather than what each of these four spheres entail. However, the three examples above seem to indicate that in recent times development scholars appear to have had a vague notion of the importance of democratic governance to development but tend to shy away from making this link or fail to do so at all. This is surprising given the various reports issued by such development funding agencies such as the World Bank and the USAID indicating the link between the two (World Bank, 1991, 1993). In recent years, a trend has emerged whereby some development communication scholars have started advocating that the best way to realize human-centered development is to increase the role of the civil society and thus limit the influence and role of the state (Fowler,1991;1996) This means working more and more with the Non Governmental Organizations. While this is plausible, there are two things to note. That NGOs have existed in the Third World for years and this has not alleviated poverty. And second, there is no way that one can ignore the stat e because the political climate has a major impact on development programs and policies. In visualizing a paradigm shift in development communication, one must begin by critically examining the human-centered development theory and address the limits and shortcomings of this approach currently in use in the discipline. Agunga, as noted above, has observed that the issue of participation in development must extend beyond development projects and into the policy-making structures of government. This is to say that the issue of project-based inclusivity does not address other power imbalances that may affect the outcome of project results and the overall standard of living of a people. Such projects are prone to being affected by policies and decisions developed outside their own sphere. Thus the policy making structure or the political system has to allow for a multi-dimensional discourse unbound by institutional constraints and be accountable to and responsive to citizen's demands. Such a paradigm shift also calls for a more comprehensive concept of development to incl ude not just the economic well-being of a people but also their political and civil rights as well. In this regard, one can mention some recent studies that have attempted to provide a wider understanding of the concept of political and civil rights. The Freedom House, a non-governmental organization, publishes annual reports on freedom and democracy around the world based on the political rights and civil liberties within each country. Their definition of political rights is useful here which refers to: the right to vote, right to organize political parties, the right to compete in elections, and the right to hold free elections. Civil liberties are defined as the freedoms to develop views, institutions and, personal autonomy apart from the state, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of worship, education, and purchasing power. In a landmark research on communication and democracy, Kedzie (1997) adopted Freedom House's civil and political rights categories for his study but added a third category namely institutionalized checks and balances. These include: the presence of an elected executive, an impartial judiciary and an elected legislature. But one can notice the one poignant omission in these categories, namely, the right to development. Such a right would include: access to credit, information, training and participation in the decision making process. Thus a wider concept of development must incorporate political, civil, institutional and development rights. Such a concept also calls for a re-conceptualization of the place and process within which development communication takes place. In an effort to develop such an appropriate communications model this paper examines two normative theories that seem to offer some elements that would inform an appropriate model. These theories are the democratic p articipant theory and the theory of the public sphere. The democratic-participant theory, attempts to establish a level-playing field in a democracy. Initially proposed by French philosopher Rousseau, two centuries ago, this political theory was only applied to communication studies in the 1970s in reaction to the development media theory that had espoused the power of the dominant media and its multiplier effect in the development process of the Third World (Enzensberger, 1970). It, therefore, sought to correct the dominant paradigm approach associated with scholars such as Schramm and his development media theory (Schramm, 1964). Instead of the top-down approach, the democratic-participant theory favors a grassroots communications approach expressing the needs of citizens. The theory argues that citizens have a right to relevant local information, the right to answer back and the right to use the means of communication for interaction and social action in small-scale settings (Pateman, 1979). It argues that a committed media that links senders to receivers and favors horizontal patterns of interaction should replace state-controlled media. The democratic-participant theory incorporates several and varied practical expressions such as community radio stations, an alternative press, public journalism, micro-media in rural settings and media for women and ethnic minorities. The theory rejects the market as a suitable institutional form since it is likely to subvert free communication; instead, the democratic-participant theory relies on participation and interaction as its key requirements. The democratic-participant theory is important in formulating a new development communication model, especially because of its emphasis on community media. Attempts by such organizations as UNESCO to establish a rural press in Third World countries in the 60s and 70s floundered mainly due to lack of capital. The urban-based media on the other hand is profit-oriented. A well conceived rural-based media would form what Pateman (1979) calls the sphere where social training for democracy is taking place outside the political arena to complement the work of civic organizations and the various professional organizations in emphasizing individual participation in decision-making. But unless new attempts are made to revive the rural press, the democratic-participant theory is likely to remain inapplicable in developing countries. And even if this is done, the question of participation of the people in such a process remains one of contention among communication scholars who argue that effective participation is often predetermined by power distribution in society. In this case then it is important to turn to the theory of the public sphere and evaluate its potential to fill these gaps. Initially outlined by Habermas (1989) in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, this theory argues that the development of competitive market capitalism provided the conditions for the development of both the theory and practice of liberal democracy in Britain. This was made through making available to the political class and the bourgeoisie the material resources to create a network of institutions in society such as newspapers publishing enterprises, libraries and universities within which a new political force, specifically public opinion, could exist. The dynamics of market capitalism made it possible for more and more people to access this public sphere since the market lowered the cost of entry to this public sphere, which in turn took on a universalistic characteristic. Habermas makes the important argument that with time the public sphere came to obey the rules of rational discourse and was thus not open to power play but to arguments based on evidence. Its co ncern was the public good and not private interests. Thus, the public sphere was a place distinct from the state and the economy. But he went on to argue that the very forces that had led to the creation of the public sphere also led to its destruction. The development of a capitalist economy, according to Habermas, took on a monopolistic culture, thus leading to an increase in the entry costs to the public sphere. This marked the beginning of the state and private control of public information that served a narrow agenda, he contends. Habermas stresses the importance of a free and accessible political public sphere to the democratic theory and praxis, which he argues is encapsulated in the concept of deliberative democracy. According to Herbamas, it is a democracy centered on the interplay between a constitutionally instituted formation of the political will and the spontaneous flow of communication, unsubverted by power, and is geared towards discovery and problem solving rather than decision making. He adds that for this sphere to realize its purpose today, it must be based on a rational reorganization of social and political power under the mutual control of organizations committed to the public sphere in their internal structures and in their relations with the state and each other. In other words, Herbamas argument seems to be that we cannot entrust the public sphere to market forces because they have a history of subverting such trust to serve narrow interests. Control must be entrusted to institutions th at are committed to the welfare of the public. He raises the requirements even higher by arguing that, "for this sphere to function properly it also requires the supportive spirit of cultural traditions and patterns of socialization, of the political culture, of a populace accustomed to freedom." (Habermas 1992: 453). Such necessary preconditions are only beginning to emerge in developing countries but it is important to note that the notion of the public sphere in Habermas' conceptualization represents an ideal type for public communicators to aspire to in a new theoretical framework. This paper suggests that a new theory can emerge from a synthesis of the human-development approach currently in use in development communication and the two theories reviewed above and proposes a social-democratic communications model which must contain the following variables: it must provide a wider concept of development to include political, civil, institutional and development rights. The new theory must treat information not as a commodity but as a social product generated in a deliberative public sphere. Such a sphere must serve the dual purpose of socializing the population to a democratic culture and facilitating public deliberations of development issues. This public sphere must be independent, evenly dispersed and accessible to the people and could include the media and recognized public places where such discourse could take place. In such a model, development becomes a product of a wider discourse in an enlarged public sphere that involves citizens, policy makers, development communicators and other change agents, negotiated within a democratic culture. Decisions and results from such participation are citizen-inspired and binding on policy makers who are in turn accountable to citizens. Such a model would require the existence of a democratic political climate where participation, inclusion and accountability would be possible. Hence the importa nce of paying more attention to issues of democracy in reconceptualizing development communication. References Agunga, D.(1996). Developing the Third World: A communications approach. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Ake, Claude.(1996). Democracy and Development in Africa. Washington, D.C: The Brookings Institution. Arundale, A. C (1990) "The Manila Declaration on People's Participation and Sustainable Development." Ifda dossier, 75/76 Jan/Apr. Ascroft, J. & Masilela S (1994).Participatory Decision-Making in Third World Development. In White, S. A., Nair, K. S.and Ascroft, J. (eds.) Participatory Communication. Working for Change and Development. New Delhi, Sage Publications. Ayittey, George.(1992). Africa Betrayed. New York: St. Martins Press. Barkan Joel and Gordon David.(1998) Democracy in Africa: No Time to Forsake It. Foreign Affairs, v77 n4: 107-118. Bratton, Michael and Walle, Nicolas.(1997) Democratic Experiments in Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chege, Michael.(1995). Between Africa's Extremes." Journal of Democracy,6, (1): 44-51. Colin, F & Sonia R.(1998). Focus group discussions in development work: Some field experiences and lessons learned. Journal of Development Communication Number One, Vol.9. Dubey, V & De Dipak.(1998). Development Communication: Challenges in the Nineties for Developing Nations. Journal of Development Communication, Number One, Vol.10.. Enzensberger, H.M.(1970). Constituents of a Theory of the Media. New Left Review, 64: 13-36. Also in D. McQuil (ed), Sociology of Mass Communications, pp. 99-116. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Fowler, A. (1991). The Role of NGOs in Changing State-Society Relations: Perspectives from Eastern and Southern Africa . Development Policy Review 9 (1): 53-83. Fowler, Alan (ed.) (1996). "Democracy, civil society and NGOs in Andrew Clayton (ed), NGOs civil society and the state; Building Democracy in Transitional Societies, INTRAC NGO management and policy series No. 5. Habermas, J.(1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. MIT Press. Habermas, J.(1992). Further Reflections on the Public Sphere. Trans Thomas Burger. In C. Calhoun (ed) Herbamas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge Mass. MIT Press. Kedzie, Christopher.(1997). Communication and Democracy.: Coincident Revolutions and the Emergent Dictator's Dilemma. "Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington D.C: Rand Graduate School. Kuhn, Thomas.(1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Melkote, S.(2000). Reinventing Development Support Communication to Account for Power and Control in Development. In Kalin Wilkins (ed). Redeveloping Communication for Social Change: Theory, Practice and Power. Lowman and Littlefield Publishers. Melkote, S.(1991). Communication for development in the third world: theory and practice. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Moemeka, A. (1994). Communication for Development: A New Pan-disciplinary Perspective. New York: State University of New York Press. Monga Celestin. (1996).The Anthropology of Anger. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Mutharika Mbingu.(1995). One africa, One Destiny: Towards Democracy, Good Governance and Development. Sapes Books. Harare: Sapes Books. Naqvi, S.N.(1993). Development Economics: A New Paradigm. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Nerone, C. (1995). Last Rights: Revisiting "Four Theories of the Press. " Urbana, University of Illinois Press. Ndegwa, stephen.(1996). The Two faces of civil society: Ngos and Politics in Africa. Connecticut: Kumarian Press. Nora, Q. (1992).Development communication: A quick scan of the present. Journal of Development Communication. No. 1. Vol.3. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Asian Institute for Development Communication. Nyerere, Julius.(1969). Freedom and Socialism: A Selection from Writings and Speeches, 1965-1967. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nzongola-Ntalaja and Lee, Margaret.(1997).The State and Democracy in Africa. New Jersey: Africa world Press. Pateman, C. (1979).The Problem of Political Obligation: A Critical Analysis of Liberal Thought. John Wiley and Son. Rasheed, Sadig.(1995). The Democratization Process and Popular PArticipation in Africa: Emerging Realities and the Challenges Ahead. Development and Change.26, 333-54. Rhodes, R. (1970). Imperialism and Underdevelopment: A reader. New York: Monthly Review Press. Rodney, Walter.(1974). How Europe underdeveloped Africa.. Washington D.C: Howard University Press. Rogers, E.(1976). Communication and Development: Critical Perspectives. New York: Free Press. Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. Ronning Helge.(1994). Media and Democracy:Theories and Principles with Reference to the African Context.. Harare: Sapes Books. Rostow W.W.(1960). The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schramm, Wilbur. (1964). Mass Media and National Development. California: Stanford University Press. Sandbrook, Richard and Barker, Judith.(1985). The Politics of Africa's Economic Stagnation. London: Cambridge University Press. Siddiqui, Rukhsana (ed.)(1997).sub-Saharan Africa in the 1990s: Challenges to Democracy and Development. Connecticut: Praeger. United Nations Development Program.(1994). Public Sector Management, Governance and Sustainable Human Development. New York: UNDP. World Bank.(1991).Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth. Washington D.C: World Bank.