아프리카ㆍ중동

Korea’s experience with Community Driven Development initiatives (CDD) began in 1920s when it was still under colonial power. These CDDs were supported by the government, while others by non-governmental bodies. Notable ones included agricultural cooperatives and the 4-H (Head, Heart, Hand and Health) supported by religious organizations. Korea’s early CDD had the goals to: establish democracy in the villages; modernize Korea’s agriculture and improve the income of families dependent on agriculture as well as mobilize resources in the rural communities; and finally rally the villages behind the spirit of self help. These early CDDs had relative success in improving rural conditions of living. Nevertheless, they failed to reduce rural poverty and improve rural technology (ADB, 2012).

Following this failure, the final community modernization campaign was launched in the 1970 at the decree of the then President Park Jung Hee. The main difference between this community modernization campaign and earlier CDD in Korea is that it combined financial help with attitudinal reform (Jungho, 2012). The backdrop of the campaign was as follows: at the end of Japanese occupation and pillage and the devastating Korean War, Korea suffered severe economic deprivation. It also faced numerous natural disasters like floods and droughts which lowered productivity below the level that could feed the nation. These issues combined to create a sense of hopelessness and desperation. Socially, Korea had undergone social erosion; and was degenerating into lawlessness, lack of public order, moral values, and idle lifestyles due to complacency in poverty. Hence there was need to revitalize mindsets.

Against this background, the government introduced a series of five year development strategies that were based on export oriented strategy and Heavy Chemical Industries. This ‘induced growth’ suddenly led to widening disparity between the urban and rural dwellers who were mainly dependent on agriculture. With poor living conditions, rural residents lost a sense of identity, safety and tolerance. As a result, there was a mass exodus to cities where life was more bearable. As the government woke up to the realities of this   phenomenon, it resorted to modernization campaign as a tool to modernize agriculture and as a ‘catching up’ strategy for the rural sector. Henceforth, Korean government adopted a two thronged policy of ‘Industrialization and Agriculture at the same time’, which allowed development to proceed on an egalitarian basis.

However, with acute financial constraints, the government was unable to finance rural modernization programs alone. Thus, the campaign was started as a partnership program between the government and the local communities in which the government distributed 335 bags of cement to 33267 villages to undertake construction work, while the communities volunteered labor. This was followed by another round of 1500 bags of cement and a tone of steel to the villages that showed greatest enthusiasm in the construction work by supplying additional manpower and finances to supplement the government’s own financial constraints. This second category saw a selection of 16,600 villages benefit. By allocating funds to villages based on performance, the government created a corporation-like atmosphere, with an incentive structure that rewarded collaboration and volunteerism, and encouraged competition among villages for best results. A top performing village was one that achieved excellent results using the meager resources allocated by the government. The projects for this modernization campaign were selected through competitive processes under the leadership of the local councils with full government support. This enabled what began as a rural modernization campaign to gain wide public approval and to graduate quickly from a rural oriented development initiative to a national tool for modernization of the entire Korean society. Han (2012) has noted that this modernization campaign is an excellent model for fighting poverty and reforming citizen’s mindsets.

According to Reeds (2012) the objective of this village modernization campaign in Korea was to 1) mobilize farmers for cooperative participation in community projects aimed at improving living conditions in villages 2) enhance investment in projects that increase productivity and improve living standards 3) bridge the widening gap between rural and urban household incomes 4) Reform the attitude of Korean citizens (Korea Saemual Undong Centre, SMU , 2014).

Korea’s modernization projects were divided into broad four broad areas, namely; Envornment, income increasing, productivity enhancement and cultural projects. The main activities at the launch of the campaign were; village clean ups, maintenance of bridges, expansion of rural village roads, building up of composting facilities and communal laundry facilities. These activities were later in 1971 expanded to include environmental conservation, production of infra and distribution facilities. From initiation, the running this community modernization campaign was closely watched by President Park, whose administration held officials at all levels of bureaucracy responsible for the results of the campaign.

The spirit of the community modernization campaign in Korea was the realization that citizen attitude is the engine that drives the growth of individuals as well as of societies at large. This is recognition that poverty is first a battle of the mind; impoverished mentality leads to impoverished lives. To overcome poverty, people must have a progressive mentality. Thus, to realize the vision of a progressive society, Korea espoused the spirit of diligence, self help and cooperation. These principles are universal and apply to any progressive society; experience of today’s developed countries is replete with demonstrations that no country in history has ever overcome poverty and underdevelopment without hard work, self determination, and collaboration which births synergy. It was upon this foundation that Korea’s community modernization campaign launched a drive to reform attitudes.

Korea’s spirit of modernization campaign was pragmatic in the sense that individuals could not embody them without actual energetic participation in community projects and trainings. These principles can be of great applicability and relevance to Africa and other developing countries.

Diligence is exhibited when individuals voluntarily work hard to realize the goals of developing themselves as well as their communities. It is seen as a necessary condition for individuals to become independent and responsible, and promote the virtues of honesty, fairness and a community devoid of fraud. Active participation in development projects is the indication of the existence of the spirit of diligence.

The campaign also adapted the ideology that ‘Heaven helps those who help themselves’, a principle based on the concept of self help. This spirit thrives on the belief that an individual must define his or her own destiny, through personal initiatives and efforts. On this basis, the campaign called on Koreans to take up their responsibilities at individual as well as the society level. This helped to reduce a culture of dependency and free riding.

The spirit of cooperation inculcates a sense of solidarity and reciprocal support.  It is based on the idea that it is impossible to improve the living standards of individuals in the community without improving the overall state of the society to which individuals are an integral part. To realize this goal, Korea’s campaign advocated the need for people to define a common destiny with common goals. This elicited voluntary participation in community projects requiring collaboration to improve the state of the overall society.

These principles reinforce each other, for example, while diligence and self-help enable individuals to prosper; they compliment with a cooperative attitude in order to maximize the welfare the overall community. Based on this spirit, the campaign built a society characterized by patriotic and responsible citizenry, good neighborliness, trust, mutuality, fairness and law and order.

In addition to this spirit the campaign adopted a raft of captivating operational strategies that included volunteerism, citizen empowerment, decentralized approach, participatory development, capacity building and institutional building.

Key lessons from the historical origin of Community modernization in Korea

There are important lessons from the historical origin of Korea’s rural modernization campaign: first, countries can take advantage of political conjectures or transitions, as well as economic difficulties to launch the initiative. Notably, Korea’s community modernization movement was launched on the backdrop of the Korean War and in the period of economic turmoil. In Africa, for example, Rwanda also launched its community based initiatives in the aftermath of the destructive genocide, to pioneer the rebuilding of its dilapidated communities. Second, the experiences from the failure of initial CDD initiatives can form a breeding ground for the success of subsequent modernization campaigns. Thus the lessons learnt from failed CCD initiatives are important benchmarks for the implementation of new CDDs. Third, political mechanization and goodwill of the central bureaucracy is especially essential for the takeoff of community modernization campaigns. In Korea’s case, the leadership of President Park’s administration was salient in the inception and implementation of Korea’s rural community modernization campaign.

Finally, there should exist strong supply side and demand side drive; In Korea President Park managed to create a sense of urgency for community’s modernization by linking it to material affluence and security of South Korea against its aggressive communist neighbor in the North. On the demand side, Koreans were already yearning for economic prosperity. Thus, when the campaign was linked to growth and prosperity, it synced with their aspirations. This made the implementation of the community modernization initiative to gain wide acceptance and crucial support of rural residents who owned it and ensured its success. However, in situations where this demand drive is lacking, political leaders as well as other community leaders must nurture it. This is because experience has demonstrated that it is impossible to implement the community modernization initiative without its full acknowledgement and participation by residents whom it is targeting.
 
Bibliography

Asian Development Bank (2012). The Kalahi CIDSS Project in the Philippines. Sharing knowledge on Community Driven Development.
Asian Development Bank (2012). The Saemaul Undong Movement in the Republic of Korea. Sharing knowledge on Community Driven Development.
Barrett, C.B, (2014). Accelerating the Structural Transformation of the Rural Africa.
Bisung, E., Elliott, S.J., Wallace, C. J., Karanja D.M (2014). Social capital, collective action and access to water in rural Kenya. Journal of Social Science and medicine (119) p. 147-154.
Chung, K. J. (**). Research Report on Saemul Undong; Experiences and Lessons from Korea’s Saemaul Undong in the 1970s.
Chung, K.J, (2012). Saemaul Undong and Ideological Reform: Study on Gender Equality. Modularization of Korea’s Development Experience. Knowledge Sharing Program.
Choe, C.S (2005). Key Factors to the Success of Community Development: The Korean Experience. Discussion paper no.39.
Han, D.H (2012). Village leaders and their Community activities. Modularization of Korea’s Development Experience. Knowledge Sharing Program.
Jungho, K., (2012). Evaluation of Village Leader Training Program. Modularization of Korea’s Development Experience.KSP
Juma, C., (2012). Building New Agricultural Universities in Africa. Faculty Research Working Paper Series. RWP 12-026
Lee, Y.H, (213). Beyond the Korean Discount: Seeking the harmony between material affluence and spiritual maturity.
Mansuri, G., and Rao, V., (2004). Community Based Driven Development: A Critical Review, WB, WPS
Naele, W., (1983). Community Development in India; Progress or Rip-off. Asia Survey.
Park, Y.,(2013). Sharing Saemaul Movement Experiences with Africa. Regional Economic Focus vol.7, no.27
Reeds, E., P., (2012). Community Development Approaches: Past and Present.
Sang, Y.R, (1985). Saemaul Undong (New Village Movement) in Korea: A strategy for the Development of the Participatory Rural Community.
SMU Korea Saemaul Undong Center (2014). Saemaul Undong in Korea.
Widner, J., Mundt, A., (1998). Researching Social Capital In Africa.
World Development Report (2008). Agriculture for Development Policy Brief. WB.