DIFFUSION MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT

Communication effects research has given scope for the diffusion model. As you already are aware of, the mass media and opinion leaders pass on the information on innovations to the masses. In other words, they diffuse the knowledge of new practices and innovations among the target audiences. There was a long debate on the question whether ideas were developed separately in each culture or were borrowed by others. The evolutionary school contended that each major culture developed individually and independently. By the end of the nineteenth century, the evolutionary theory came into criticism for its inconsistencies. The new protagonists contended that most cultures exhibited elements of borrowed culture more than what had developed from within their own culture. Later researchers by 1940s identified the role of mass media in national development. The external influence on societies for development became the basis of diffusion model. Rogers defined the development of individuals as 'the process by which individuals change from a traditional way of life to a more complex, technologically advanced, and rapidly changing life style' . Everett is an important contributor to diffusion studies. The diffusion model contained five stages of adoption. The process of adopting innovations depended upon several factors. The five stages are awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption. The first stage is awareness. Here the individual is exposed to the innovation. However, he lacks complete information. At the second stage of interest, he seeks more information to understand the innovation. In the next stage, he evaluates the innovation in the light of his needs, both present and future. He may decide to try the innovation little and this can be called the trial stage. When he decides to continue the use of innovation, it finally results in adoption. In the early stages of awareness mass media play a vital role, but at the evaluation and adoption stages interpersonal sources of information carry more influence than others. Rogers also identified these five stages as knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation. The diffusion model was criticised because: a. b. c. It concentrated mostly on media and their messages. In effect, it had a bias of Consequently, it never paid any attention to the media content; The knowledge of the adopters or target audience was not properly measured; communication efforts;

d. e. f. g.

Pro-source bias; Pro-innovation bias; Never identified the real causes behind backwardness, and One-way flow of message.

MECHANISTIC MODEL
Jan Servas, who is an advocate of participatory approach to development, has identified two streams of strategies for development and compared them. Accordingly, the first one is called mechanistic. This model considers that people need to be helped because they lack abilities and sources to develop on their own. This is also known as problem-solving model which considers the strategist knows everything and the target audience has no knowledge whatsoever. Inevitably, the Western knowledge is described as superior. Here the agent of change is either the policy-maker or researcher. For them, people are nothing but targets. Leaders are appointed by higher authorities and mass media are used to carry the messages of development. The communication process is top-down and one-way. The whole process is designed to be of short-term and prefers evolutionary changes in the society for development.

PARTICIPATORY MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT

The other extreme to the mechanistic model is organic model. It is in total variance with the mechanistic model. According to the organic model, people do not depend upon charity. In fact, they can help themselves. The process that makes them help themselves is called empowerment. The attitude is not problem solving, but posing the problem to the people. The model considers participation of the people in the developmental process ever-ending. They also share knowledge since everyone has something to offer. The rational knowledge is also considered as useful and relevant. People themselves are change agents, and are considered as subjects and actors as well. Leaders are selected by people themselves and leadership qualifications were co-operation, delegation and adaptability, as listed by Srinivas Melkote. The organic model emphasised on the integrated media use and two-way Communication. While the mechanistic model opted for hierarchical and vertical organisational structure, the organic model preferred a two-way horizontal structure. This facilitated listening to people and also transmission of information both ways. The planning is of long-term, open

ended and its evaluation is done by participants themselves. The organic model aimed at the removal of causes of underdevelopment and also at making structural changes in the society. However, participation has different meanings for different people. organic model, which is also known as participatory model has its own problems. They can be: 1. Unstable and non-receptive political climate in the country concerned; 2. Feudal & dictatorial system that does not promote democratic participation; 3. Lack of local leadership and institutions; 4. Control of production means by a few; 5. Total marginalisation of the down-trodden sections of the society; 6. Gender inequity; 7. An unwilling government; 8. Paucity of funds, and 9. Infrastructural inadequacies affecting grassroot participation. The participatory model looks interesting and relevant. However, several factors affect its efficacy. Ashcroft and other thinkers suggested a development communication model called knowledgesharing model. It was to be on a co-equal basis. The experts argued that both the benefactor and the beneficiary by sharing knowledge had an equal chance of influencing each other. Nair and White framed a transactional communication model to support this idea. The model identified three levels of participation was active, creative and continuous. Quasi participation was less focused and laid less emphasis on two-way communication. Low participation did not pay much attention either to the need for change or communication.

DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT COMMUNICATION

Initially the focus was on communication for development, which emphasized on big media and government-people communication. However, after its detailed evaluation, a new concept, development support communication, emerged. The development support communicator was the link between the technical experts and the people. His job was to bring them together to interact with co-

equal partners. In development communication, it is found that a common communication language was absent. The practitioners of development projects and beneficiaries are attempting to solve the problem. Development Support Communication model has the characteristics which are listed here: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Basically it is development agency based; It has horizontal knowledge sharing mechanism between experts and receivers; Aims at grassroots level development; The focus is on participatory method, and For communication, small media like video, film strips, traditional forms, group and interThe ultimate objective of DSC is to create a lasting mutual trust between the benefactors and beneficiaries. It envisages a pro-active role for the common people in development process.

personal communication are used.

GANDHIAN MODEL
Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence, brought political independence to India from the British rule. At the same time, he had his own thesis of development. Mahatma Gandhi knew the needs of the people in a country of villages. He proposed a holistic approach to development. Gandhiji combined moral and spiritual values with economic goals that contributed for an over-all development of both the individual and society.
Gandhi's economic philosophy was greatly influenced by Ruskin's Unto This Last. From this book: he learnt: (a) that the good of the individual is contained in the good of all; (b) that a lawyer's work has the same value as the barber's, in as much as all have the same right to earn from their work; and, (c) that a life of labour, i.e., the life of the tiller of the soil and the handicraftsman is the life worth living. Further, Gandhi was also inspired by the ideas of Thoreau, Tolstoy, and Kropotkin. Tolstoy's principles of simplicity, asceticism, and equalitarianism became a part of Gandhi's philosophy. Besides, the Indian scriptures (the Bhagavad Gita, and the Upanishads) and Indian saints such as Kabir, Mira, and Guru Nanak, also left a deep impression on Gandhi. Gandhi's ideas on economics are embedded in his philosophy of life. Gandhian economics differs from mainstream economics in the following manner 1) It replaces the assumption of the perfect mobility of labour with the assumption that community and family stability should have priority. 2) It rejects the more-is-always-better principle and recognizes that there is such a thing as 'enough' material wealth. 3) It recognizes that consuming more than 'enough' creates more problems than it solves, and causes consumer satisfaction or utility to decline, rather than increase.

4) It aims at a better quality of life, rather than higher standards of living as propagated by other economists.
Let us have a clear idea of Gandhi's philosophy of life to understand Gandhian economics. Gandhi viewed life as a whole, and not in its isolated compartments. According to the Indian scriptures, there are four aspects of an individual's life: Artha (money), Kama (desire), Dharma (righteousness), and Moksha (liberation). These aspects are interrelated, and, therefore all of them should be harmoniously developed. Money is required to satisfy the basic requirements of life, however, it is not the end in itself. Man's aim is not to multiply worldly desires and engage his whole life in acquiring wealth to satisfy all his desires. Gandhi's ideas on economics are a part of his general philosophy of life. In these ideas, he outlined principles on which he wanted to build the ideal socialist society. The principles are as follows:

1) Humanism: Man is both the means, and the end of all activity. He is also the measure of performance. Everything functions with a human face. All ideas, institutions, and actions are to be judged in terms of whether they help in building a better man.

2) Simple Living: Gandhi had faith in materialism without lust and passion. Material progress must be
subservient to moral growth. The ultimate aim of man is not to accumulate wealth and enjoy luxuries of life, but to attain the higher values of life, and to lead a simple and full life. Simple living and high thinking should be the motto of life. 3) Social Justice: Society is divided between rich and poor, between the strong and the weak, between the privileged and unprivileged, and between the elite and the masses. The principle of social justice requires that the former must help the latter in fulfilling their basic requirements. The ideal functioning of the society must aim at providing social justice and reducing inequalities.

4) Non Violence: Social change is to be brought about through non violent methods. Ends and means are
inseparable in life, and only good means yield good results. An ideal society can only be established by adopting peaceful and non violent means, and not through hatred and war. In Gandhian economics, the principle of non violence means the following things: (a) the absence of capitalistic exploitation; (b) the decentralization of production units; (c) cheaper defense organization; (d) less inequality of income; and (e) self sufficiency of communities.

5) Love and Co-operation: An ideal society should be established on the principles of love and cooperation. In
such a society, the love of others and not self love; co-operation and not egocentric acts, pre-dominate. Relation between humans should be based on truth, love, and cooperation, and not on money and matter.

6) Harmony: The ideal economic condition according to Gandhi is self sufficiency of the economy. For
this, the following harmonies should be maintained: (a) the requirements of the people must be in harmony with the resources of the economy and,; (b) production technology should match the country's requirements.

The core assumptions on which the Gandhian model was based were: 1. 2. 3. 4. True India can be seen only in its villages, not in cities. Exploitation of the villages and villagers by the urban people should stop. Minimum needs or basic needs of the people should be fulfilled first. Physical labor is compulsory for all and they should earn their living through such labor. Then

everyone understands the real dignity of labor.

5.

People should opt for indigenously (swadeshi) produced products and institutions. The ethical balance between ends and means was greatly emphasised by Gandhiji. This was

essential to the success of non-violence. The Gandhian model underscored the importance of village economy for not only its self-sufficiency but also of the entire country. When needed, villagers could buy or get things from outside, which they did not produce. The stress was also on khadi and village industries that would manufacture the basic products of everyday life and offer work for everyone. Production of soap, paper and metal, hand pounding, oilseed crushing and other such methods were preferred because they employed manual labor: He thought machines would make manpower redundant, but accepted technologies that meant to generate employment or did not affect it. One of the best principles of economic and political philosophy was decentralisation of political and economic powers. According to him, this could be achieved by the introduction of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs). Each village would manage all its affairs in the sense it will have legislative, executive and judicial powers to manage its own economy. It would also take care of health, sanitation and education. In a way, every village functioned as a republic. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992 envisaged self-governance through PRIs over the country. . The co-operative system, Gandhiji believed, would make rural India prosperous. Co-operative farming was also recommended. Credit cooperatives, weavers and diary co-operatives would change the lives of the rural people by freeing them from the strangle-hold of money lenders. Though India has a large number of co-operative societies and banks, still money lenders exploit the village folk. Trusteeship, Gandhiji thought, would end exploitation of man by man. He considered that all natural resources including land should have collective ownership so that the entire community would benefit. Rich people were to act like trustees of the society and help poor people to develop collectively. The Mahatma did not approve the modern education system. He advocates an education relevant for everyday life, not merely a collection of information. His educational system was to develop the full potential and talents of young minds. It was practical education aimed at self-reliance and high degree of morality. He called it as 'Nai Taleem'. The primary premise of Gandhian economic philosophy is 'production by the masses, not mass production.

An Evaluation of Gandhian Theory of Development

Gandhian economic thought appears to be very logical and impressive. However, it suffers from following deficiencies: 1) Gandhi was not an economist in any professional sense. His economic ideas lack systematization, and lay scattered here and there in his writings. He attempted no economic analysis and presented no theoretical model. 2) In fact, Gandhi has not studied the writings of the western economists. He only studied Marx and that, too, late in his life during his detention in 1942. Whatever he wrote or said about economics was the natural outburst of his ethical and philosophical thought, and was not adopted from any book. 3) His thinking on economics does not contain any technical knowledge that has analytical value. He was a practical idealist. and was immediately interested in solving the problems of poverty and inequality in his country.

4) The solutions he suggested called for a socioeconomic revolution through non-violent means. According to
him, to achieve this objective, the country must act according to sarvodaya principles. It is a great fantasy to expect that the rich would shed their acquisitive tendencies and would help their poor brethren to get out of their poverty. 5) Universalising the idea of non-violence, he hoped, would bring about a change of heart. However, to think that all countries would follow the path of non-violence is mere wishful thinking. Despite the generally inoperative nature of Gandhian philosophy, Gandhi must be credited for emphasizing the role of small scale industries and agriculture in the development of the Indian economy. Almost all the economists recognize the importance of small scale industries, and the need for their decentralization in an overpopulated and rural based underdeveloped country. Gandhi also correctly realized that in such an economy, reorganization and revitalization of agriculture is a pre-condition to economic development. It has to evolve from the people.