Community Groups Concern over Globalization, Environmental Concerns and Social Equity Issues - Coursework Example

Community Groups’ Concern over Globalization, Environmental Concerns and Social Equity Issues Abstract This assignment attempts to identify and explore some of the issues that have been of concern to community groups, particularly globalisation, environment and social equity issues. First, it looks at the meaning of the term “community” as defined by different sources and its relevance to the context of this study. Further, it focuses on the onset and some of the reasons for the formation of groups within communities to deal with issues relating to the three aforementioned concepts. Within the discussion, an attempt will be made to look at the three aforementioned concepts and the challenges that they are associated with and which are of great concern to communities. In addition, this discussion briefly explores the responses of community groups to some of the challenges relating to the above concepts such as anti-globalisation campaigns, poverty, inequalities and sustainability. In relation to globalisation, environment and social equity issues, this discussion points out some of the challenges that are given focus by specific community groups and highlights some pros and cons that are associated with the reaction of such groups to these challenges. As it will be demonstrated, the majority of the community groups either attract public attention or policy attraction in dealing with a particular social issue. But it is possible to find some community groups that have succeeded in attracting public attention as well as pushing for policy implementation as it will be seen. Finally, it will be argued that in the global world, community practitioners have played a particularly important role in assisting communities to regain the strength they need to counteract the challenges that are associated with the impact of globalisation as well as environmental concern and social equity issues. Community and community groups The word community generally refers to a group of interacting organisms sharing a given inhabited environment. Organisms in a community affect each other’s distribution, abundance and evolutionary adaptation. In reference to human communities, this term connotes a group of people having cultural, religious, ethnic, or other common characteristics and who have common interests amongst them (Rousseau, 1991). A number of pre-conditions may be present and common among members of a community such as beliefs, resources, intents, preferences, needs and risks, all of which affect the identity of participants and the degree of cohesiveness. Recently, the concept of community has led to significant debate among scholars leading to a variety of definitions of the term. Traditionally, this term has been defined as a group of people who are interacting and living in a common location. Rousseau (1991) suggests that in the global world, the term community can best be defined as a group that is organised around common values that are attributed to social cohesion within a shared geographical location, generally in social units that are larger than a household (Rousseau, 1991). Cnaan and Milofsky (2007) suggest that human beings within communities often come together into an organization that acts in their self interest. These organisations are known as community groups. One of the key reasons of forming community groups is to generate durable power to enable them to influence key decision makers on a range of issues over time. According to Cnaan and Milofsky, usually, the drive that leads to formation of community groups is the assumption that social change in the global world largely involves social struggle and conflict in order to generate collective power for the powerless. In view of this, the purpose of this paper is to examine community groups’ concerns over globalisation, environmental concerns and social equity issues in the global world. To understand the concept of community better, it will be prudent to point out some of the pros and cons in relation to reactions of community groups to the impact of the above concepts. Finally, the paper examines some community groups that have succeeded in attracting public attention and are also involved in policy implementation in relation to certain social issues. Globalisation Globalisation is a process that allows greater interaction among countries, persons, communities and businesses around the world (Boudreaux, 2008). It is manifested by political, social, cultural and technological integration of individuals, societies and economies all over the world. Boudreaux (2008) explains that the process of globalisation brings about benefits to communities such as increased communication among people around the world, an increase in the international flow of goods and services, increased interaction among different cultures in the world and technological advancements among others. Generally, with the emergence of a well integrated global market, local and national policy makers are increasingly being controlled, with dramatic implications for economic viability and stability of communities in both developing and industrialised nations. However, Reisch (2005) argues that the growing global interconnectedness of nation states has led to numerous challenges for community groups. Indeed, as Reisch explains, the advent of globalisation has transformed the community practices in both developed and developing nations, raising a lot of concerns among different community groups. Reisch opines that the growing dominance of market mechanisms and ideologies has affected policy making at local and national levels in ways that community groups are just starting to comprehend. It is evident that recently, there seems to be a greater sense of need for political awareness and liberation of common problems at societal levels, set against a backdrop of greater risk, fear and insecurity (Kaldor, 2003). These developments, which are an outcome of globalisation, can be seen through the lens of the term civil society. What is clear is that the concept of community seems to represent a new form of politics. According to Kaldor, (2003), this has resulted into the formation of activist community groups to counter the social and political challenges posed by globalisation. With globalisation creating massive inequalities between the rich and the poor, clearly localised community groups’ activists are enhancing development projects that seek to engage in a type of ‘bottom-up’ development (Craig, 2007). The aim of this is to address the structural reasons for individuals living within deprived communities in many parts of the world, and the growing poverty and inequality that they face. Craig explains further that owing to the recent practices by community groups, the concept of community can be understood to mean a way of strengthening civil society by prioritising the actions of communities and their perspectives in the development of social, economic and environmental policy. It seeks the empowerment of local communities, taken to mean both geographical communities, communities of interest or identity and communities organising around specific themes or policy initiatives (Craig, 2007). In this regard, the concept of ‘community’ needs to be understood as operating within a framework that seeks to promote economic, political, social and cultural transformation in the context of globalisation. Environmental equity concerns The concept of environmental equity implies that some populations, especially the minorities and those with low income, are disproportionately exposed to environmental injustices (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2011). The major concern of this concept is expressed in the idea that low-income populations and the minorities are most proximate to elevated concentrations of environmental hazards such as waste treatment facilities, incinerators, waste dumps, landfills, and other industrial and commercial toxic release sites. According to EPA (2011), the concept of environmental equity refers to the presence of environmental justice. This organ defines environmental justice as "the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures and income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and programmes and policies. Fair treatment means that no racial, ethnic or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from the operation of industrial, municipal and commercial enterprises and from the execution of federal, state and local, and tribal programmes and policies (EPA, 2011). According to Elliott et al (not dated), the concern over the environment has become more common among community group activists recently. Since the creation of the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1972 at a global conference on human environment, the UN has been at the forefront in transnational advocacy on environmental issues such as forestry and fisheries among others. Elliott et al (not dated) further explains that non-governmental organizations have played a very great role in protection of the environment mainly since they bring technical expertise that would otherwise not be available. Just one year after the creation of UNEP, an NGO office was established to oversee the level of participation by civil society. Currently, there are approximately 200 multilateral environmental agreements, with civil society groups’ representatives playing an important role in various aspects of negotiations. An ambitious attempt to integrate environmental issues under sustainable development rubric was made in 1992 at a UN Conference on Environmental and Development (UNCED) which was held in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. According to Elliott et al (not dated), this conference had an active involvement of 800 NGOs from 160 countries. Consequently, the UNCED came up with an action plan for addressing environmental problems as well as founding of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to monitor the implementation of the largely voluntary commitments. Recently, there have been concerted efforts by the involved groups to sensitize the developed countries of their responsibilities to increase resource transfers to the poor countries for development and environmental protection as well as well as the responsibilities of multinational corporations in enhancing sustainable development. Social equity issues Social equity implies fair access to livelihood, education and resources. In addition, it implies full participation in the political and cultural life of the community. As Bussel et al (2006) explain, social equity is the cornerstone of any given community, which cannot be maintained for a few at the expense of the many. In a sustainable community, culture holds a high standard of equity and justice in the relationships among individuals and in their relationship with the natural world. Consequently, people honour and uphold the well-being of the whole community. Sustainability is a key point to enhancing social equity. It enables individuals to feel connected to their communities, feel good about what they do in their communities and feel that their communities are doing the right thing to them. On the other hand, inequality results into increased challenges of creating reliable prosperity in different ways. For example, those who are marginalized may be tempted to eat into reserves of society and nature to meet their immediate needs. Social equity requires that historical inequities be addressed and compensated fairly through a just transition. Just like the environmental groups, human rights groups have often focussed on governments and bodies such as UN with a key objective of promoting universal standards and norms (Bussel et al (2006). A good example is the action that was taken by transnational advocacy groups in 1970s and 1980s which were involved in the fight against apartheid in South Africa. After they were frustrated by the unresponsiveness of governments and the UN, they turned their attentions to corporations operating in South Africa as a second best conduit for pressuring the government there. Many of the movements that were involved in anti-apartheid campaigns including interfaith Centre for Corporate Responsibility, the investor Responsibility Research Council and Revelled Sullivan among others are active today. They have been involved in campaigns for human rights such as market-based campaigns, corporate codes of conduct, shareholder resolutions and boycott in order to promote change (Bussel et al, 2006). As well, groups concerned with human rights and environment, particularly emerging from local communities especially in developing countries have turned their attention to the international financial institutions since 1980s (Elliott et al, not dated). They have criticised the World Bank for ignoring human and environmental consequences of its large infrastructural projects and for failure to consult the local communities affected by those projects. In the 1990s, many of the raised concerns coalesced around the issue of debt relief. The Jubilee Movement, which began in UK and later became a global phenomenon, has been the most successful in this area. With rock stars such as Bono, this movement has helped thousands of church goers and other activists to put debt relief at the centre of development discussions (Elliott et al, not dated). Pros and cons of community groups’ concerns According to Reisch (2005), community practitioners have played a significant role in developing a deeper understanding of the process of globalisation, the complex forces that are involved and the role that the community has to play in the democratisation of global order helping to shape human lives in regard to environmental and social equity issues. Community groups have helped to create pressure for a renewal of local autonomy at the community level. Specifically, they have enabled citizens to act on their feelings of global responsibility and rectify global inequalities. They have also enhanced political participation by building bridges of cooperation among citizens and local political institutions. At the international level, they have enriched community life by drawing in foreign cultures and by promoting habits of tolerance, understanding, and empathy for foreigners (Shuman, 1994). However, in spite of all these, community groups’ practices are associated with certain shortcomings. For example, as Craig, 2007 explains, community capacity-building in the context of partnership working, which is often advocated by NGOs, has undermined and manipulated communities. Craig explains that local, regional, national and international bodies often buy themselves into the continuing political space which makes them not to respond appropriately to the needs and demands of their respective communities. Their practices constantly obscure them to the structural reasons for their existence such as to fight for poverty and inequality. In order to respond better to the needs of local communities, such bodies need to shed the much power that they enjoy (Craig, 2007). In addition, according to Petras and Veltmeyer (2001), what we are observing are elements of a paradoxical situation in regard to the above concepts. With regard to the role that is played by community groups such as NGOs in global social policy/civil society arena social assistance channelled via these groups to deal with poverty is conditioned on the acceptance of neoliberal macroeconomic policies and structures. In this sense, Petras and Veltmeyer suggest that within the neoliberal politico-economic context, cooperation for the alleviation of poverty and inequality is in reality a means to perpetuate the conditions that create poverty. The authors therefore argue that there needs to be rethinking of development from below coupled with a strategy of ‘development to the inside.’ This means that there needs to be a significant shift in the ownership, production and trade of basic necessities to the impoverished people of the ‘internal market.’ According to the authors, only then can we begin to truly to democratise globalisation and re-orientate it towards a more community focused approach (Petras &Veltmeyer, 2001). Community groups’ reaction to social issues and success in leadership role Notably, the majority of community groups either attract public attention or policy attraction in dealing with a particular social issue. Very rarely can a community group play a dual role of public attention and policy implementation. But as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (2001) argues, it is possible to find some community groups that push for policy implementation while dealing with a particular social issue. A good example is the Oxfam international which has been following up the campaign on debt relief. This group has assisted activists to be able to focus on broad goals, reduce debt burdens as much as possible and use the proceeds to alleviate poverty. In the recent past, Oxfam International has been at the forefront in the campaign targeting the large infrastructural projects often funded or guaranteed by the World Bank seen to be prone to corruption, increased indebtedness and environmental degradation. In the year 2002, Oxfam International together with other affiliated groups coalesced around four core demands for reforms of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) (Elliott et al, not dated). First, they called for all meetings of the two institutions to be open to the media and the public. Secondly, they advocated for cancellation of all debts of poor countries to the Word Bank and IMF using institutions’ own resources. Another issue that they raised was for the two institutions to end all their policies that hinder people’s access to food, shelter, clean water, healthcare, education, and right to organise. Finally, they advocated for the World Bank to stop all support for socially and environmentally destructive projects such as gas, oil and mining activities. According to Elliott et al, (not dated), the two institutions have so far taken significant steps to respond to the demands of those groups. One example of the efforts by the World Bank to address those issues can be seen in the guidelines negotiated by the World Bank and other stakeholders when the bank agreed to support a Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project while giving consideration to the impact of the project to the local communities as well as the environment. Conclusion In conclusion, the term community in reference to human beings has numerous definitions. But as demonstrated in this discussion, the use of this term has remained to some extent associated with hope and wish of reviving more harmonious types of bonds among people. As mentioned earlier, the term community can be seen as a group that is organized around common values which is attributed to social cohesion within a shared geographical location, generally in social units that are larger than a household. In summary, a community plays a crucial symbolic role in generating people’s sense of belonging. In deed, communities are often faced with challenges posed by the process of globalisation and other concepts such as environmental and social equity issues. Some of these challenges as demonstrated in this discussion include poverty, sustainability, human rights abuse and inequality among others. In order to counter these challenges, individuals within communities often organise themselves into community groups. Generally, these groups help to generate durable power to enable them to influence key decision makers on a range of social issues such as those mentioned in this discussion. As noted in this discussion, it is highly probable that community practitioners are slowly engaging in a kind of ‘global-community reformist’ mode of thinking and rather than continuing to engage in critiquing the effects of globalisation, environment and social equity issues they are actively involved in pushing for reforms as well as policy implementation. In this regard, they have played a significant role in developing a deeper understanding of the process of globalisation and the challenges it poses to them and the role that the community has to play in the democratisation of global order, helping to shape human lives in regard to environmental and social equity issues. But as this discussion demonstrates, the practices of community groups are not always beneficial. They are constantly engaged in politics which makes them not to respond appropriately to the needs and demands of their respective communities. But this does not rule out the fact that community practitioners have played a particularly important role in assisting communities to regain the strength they need to counteract the challenges that are associated with the impact of globalisation as well as environmental concern and social equity issues. References Bussel, R., Feekin, L. & Syrett, C. (2006) The social equity factor: Community attitudes, expectations and priorities for Eugene’s sustainable business development, retrieved from, http://pages.uoregon.edu/lerc/public/pdfs/socialequityfactor.pdf (30 May 2011). Boudreaux D. J, (2008) Globalization: yesterday and today, ABC-CLIO, Greenwood, USA. Cnaan, R. A & Milofsky, C. (2007) Handbook of Community Movements and Local Organizations, Springer, New York, N.Y USA Craig, G. (2007) In Critical Social Policy: A Journal of Theory & Practice in Social Welfare, Issue 92, Volume 27, August 2007. Elliott, K, A., Kar, D. & Richardson. J. D., (not dated) Assessing globalization critics: “Talkers are no good doers???” retrieved from http://www.iie.com/publications/wp/02-5.pdf (30 May 2011). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2011) Sustainability, Available from, http://www.epa.gov/swerosps (28 May 2011). Kaldor, M. (2003) Five Meanings of Global Civil Society, Policy Press, UK. Petras, J. & Veltmeyer, H. (2001) Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century, Zed Books, London, UK. Reisch, M. (2005) The Handbook of Community Practice, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, California, USA. Rousseau, M. F. (1991) Community: the tie that binds, University Press of America, Lanham, USA Shuman, M. (1994) Towards a Global Village: International Community Development Initiatives, Pluto Press, London, UK. United States Agency for International Development USAID (2001) Policy implementation: What USAID has learned, USAID Publications, Washington DC, USA Retrieved from, http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/pnach306.pdf (31 May 2011). Read More