Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down: False Dichotomy?

We are social workers, and as such we appreciate the importance of assessing and intervening with a client (or community) in context and affirm the value of self-determination.  We help to build individuals’ and communities’ capacities to shape their own future and define their own wellbeing.  It is important to keep these values in mind when practicing in an international context, especially because we are also engaged in historically hurtful power dynamics which we do not wish to perpetuate.  The difficulty of holding to this rule in international settings comes from the incredible cultural, economic, and political differences between the Western social worker/agency and the clients and communities at the grassroots level.  Both parties have resources and wisdom to contribute to intervention strategies; the trick is to find the right balance between both. 

And this is where most development efforts have gone horribly awry in implementation.  Foreign-led organizations and institutions may not engage in a detailed power analysis of community-level social norms, economic systems, and political processes.  The imposition of a Western framework (like a free market) onto a society which already has a functioning system of economic transactions is like mixing oil and water—one will not penetrate the other and instead of a fully integrated solution, you get a gloppy mix.  The target society of the intervention gets caught in between the traditional and novel system, which both break down as actors try to navigate both at the same time.  This is generally why “top-down” interventions don’t work, or don’t work as well as they should.

Recently, there has been more recognition that these “bottom-up” interventions are preferable for international community development and broad interventions for social issues.  Indigenous NGOs have become powerful actors in development, and tailored interventions for specific communities and populations have become more popular areas of Western donors to place their dollars.  However, NGOs and grassroots initiatives have severe limitations; it is impossible for these actors—even in coalition with others—to affect big projects that require significant financial and technological investment (e.g., national education or health policies).

The debate in classrooms and on the ground focuses on the battle between Top-Down and Bottom-Up models of intervention, for which a truce seems to have been authored:  Top-down intervention (led by foreign governments or global institutions like the World Bank) are effective for broad-based change requiring large amounts of resources while Bottom-up intervention (like microfinance strategies) work best at the individual and community level for improving people’s immediate well-being.  Thus, foreign actors maintain control of macro-level structural adjustment and indigenous actors are able to effect change at the local level.  This is not a win-win situation.  This leads to a stratified society in which people are not given the opportunity to contribute to nation building and foreign institutions continue to enjoy the power imbalance that started with colonialism.  Our job as social workers is to affirm the contributions of both models of intervention and development and to call out their respective weaknesses.  Perhaps then we can find the proper balance that will affirm  individuals’, communities’, and states’ rights to self-determination while also ensuring the well-being of all involved.