Editorial 
Editorial 3 
This issue of the Journal continues the ongoing debate around the issues of integration and 
participation in development. Both these issues are seen as critical elements in the 
development process. The first four articles in this issue of the Journal in one way or another 
develop both of these themes, though in relation to the particular topics under discussion, 
namely relief-development strategies, social forestry, voluntary agencies and 'appropriate' 
development 
Reading through these articles raised in my mind a number of questions about what we 
actually mean by these words, particularly in relation to what they mean at the level of the 
grassroots people themselves. How often does integration mean integration and coordination 
among ministries, departments and NGOs, and does not include the people themselves? How 
often do we talk aboutparticipation meaning only that we will 'consult' the people, sell an idea 
to them, or (even worse) simply expect them to provide labour on projects that the local 
administration or central government bureaucracy have decided are required in a certain area? 
How often does participation mean capacity building among local communities, and leaving 
them with the 'control' over decisions that affect them (while also recognising the integration 
of local and national development needs and processes)? Too often, it would seem, 
development refers to a maintenence of the status quo position, where local communities have 
the level and order of their participation mapped out for them from outside the community. 
This is in opposition to an approach which recognises that communities can take responsibility 
for transforming their lives, and deciding on the nature of their participation and contribution, 
in terms of their underslanding of their world and the larger world around them. Development 
as transformation and democratisation requires that much more trust be given to local 
communities, perhaps at the expense of the power of local and national bureaucracies. These 
are issues that require more discussion and, even more importantly, more reflection on 
practice in the field. 
Hay'svery interesting article, "Food, AidandRelief-DevelopmentStrategies" contributes 
to this debate in the context of famine relief. He argues, very cogently, for the building of local 
household and community capacity in the context of relief, including food aid, strategies. His 
thesis is that the devastating ongoing effects of famine are a result of inadequate and 
unstabilised household incomes, and therefore to overcome ongoing famine it is necessary to 
build the capacity of local households and communities to increase their income and to 
withstand fluctuations in income. Of particular interest in Hay's paper is the delineation of 
a number of criteria which can be used to assess the success of famine relief programmes, in 
terms ofnotonly how far they provide relieffrom human suffering butalso the extent to which 
they contribute to household and community investment. Further identification of programmes 
in Africa which have tried to do this would be an important contribution to future planning 
for famine relief and development
4 Editorial 
The Muir and Casey article, "Institutional Responsibility for Social Forestry in Africa: 
Lessons from Zimbabwe", also reflects on these issues of integration and participation. They 
make an argument for the definition and use of 'appropriate' institutional structures to combat 
the widespread deforestation in much of Africa. This implies using institutions that are most 
in touch with ordinary peasant farmers (eg rural development and extension agencies, 
including, possibly especially, agricultural extension agents) and working with them regularly, 
rather than commercial forestry structures which are unable to access local fanning systems. 
Of particular interest are their comments on identifying people's need for wood, as the 
commonly accepted understanding of the need for f uelwood may not be the priority for local 
people. They call for an holistic, integrated and multi-use approach to tree-planting and rural 
afforestation. 
Eziakor, in his article "Rethinking Third World Development", ends with a plea for a new 
and appropriate development paradigm. This he defines as people-centred and need oriented 
as well as ecologically sustainable. He echoes Schumacher's view that development must 
start with "people and their education, organisation and discipline." 
The themes of participation and integration are continued in Osei-Hwedie's article on 
"Voluntary Agencies and the Promotion of Mental Health". He echoes the need to make 
"wiser" and moreeffective use of all human resources and potential.byreturningresponsibility 
for making institutions effective to the people and the community to be served, in this case 
through the use of volunteers and voluntary agencies (though he does not go to the next logical 
step, the mental patients themselves!). He recognises the important roles that such voluntary 
agencies do and must play in providing and developing social support services and in 
community responsibility for these services. 
The last article, and die comment on it, in this issue refers to an article published in Vol 
3 No 1 (1988) of this Journal, "Social Science in Africa: Problems and Prospects". In the 
article "Misconceptions on the role of the Social Sciences" (which is a revised version of the 
reply originally submitted to the Journal and read by Bloom), Pearce, as a philosopher, takes 
issue with the sociologist/social scientist view ofBloom in the original article. Pearceargues 
that social scientists cannot claim any special privileged position in society with respect to 
their skillsor knowledge, and therefore do not have anything special to offer for their assumed 
role of social critic. The debate on the place and role of the social sciences in Africa is an 
important one which deserves more discussion and reflection on practice and possibilities. 
However, this debate needs to take place in an atmosphere of listening and respect While the 
subject may, and possibly should, generate great passion, argument at an emotive and 
personal level detracts from the usefulness of this debate in terms of taking understanding 
forward. If other readers of the Journal wish to contribute to this debate we may be able to 
view it from a number of different perspectives and so increase our understanding of the role 
that the social sciences, and the social scientist, can play in national development in Africa.