Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T10:04:30.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developmental Roles for Social Work in the Third World: The Prospect of Social Planning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

James Midgley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many social workers today are critical of what they regard as their profession's conventional concern with remedial social welfare. This criticism has been voiced with special reference to developing countries, and some social workers have suggested alternative roles for social work in the third world. Among these it has been suggested that social workers should take prime responsibility for social development planning in the developing countries. But this suggestion is unrealistic. Social workers are not likely to be asked to participate in national social policy formulation and planning until they have legitimized their claim to professional status and public recognition and demonstrated their ability to deal with the pressing problems of poverty in the third world through direct service.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 1978 , pp. 173 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Stein, H. D., ‘Social Work's Developmental and Change Functions’, Social Service Review, 50 (1976), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Ibid. pp. 1–2.

3 Thomas, P. T., ‘Social Work Education and Training’, in India, Planning Commission, Social Welfare in a Developing Economy, New Delhi, 1963, p. 67.Google Scholar

4 See Stickney, P. J. and Resnick, R. P., World Guide to Social Work Education, International Association of Schools of Social Work, New York, 1974.Google Scholar

5 As long ago as 1957 Marjorie Brown, a British social work educator, questioned the usefulness of training students from developing countries in social work in Britain. The British courses were, she thought, of limited relevance to these students, who came from countries which were predominantly agricultural. See Brown, M., ‘Where do we go from Here?’, Social Service Quarterly, 31 (1957), 112–16.Google Scholar

6 Nations, United, Training for Social Welfare: Fifth International Survey, New York, 1971, p. 48.Google Scholar

7 International Association of Schools of Social Work, Proceedings of the XVI Congress of Schools of Social Work, New York, 1973.Google Scholar

8 Council on Social Work Education, An lntercultural Exploration: Universals and Differentials in Social Work Values, Functions and Practice, New York, 1967.Google Scholar

9 Ibid. pp. 131–7.

10 Jagannadham, V., ‘Social Policy and Social Work’, in Khinduka, S. K. (ed.), Social Work in India, Kitab Mahal, Allahabad, 1965, p. 156.Google Scholar

11 See for example Myrdal, G., Asian Drama: An Enquiry into the Poverty of Nations, Pantheon, New York, 1968Google Scholar; Donaldson, P., Worlds Apart, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1971Google Scholar; MacHale, J., World Facts and Trends, Collier, New York, 1972Google Scholar; and United Nations, 1974 Report on the World Social Situation, New York, 1975.Google Scholar

12 United Nations, Study on the World's Children, New York, 1970.Google ScholarPubMed

13 Khinduka, S. K., ‘Social Work in the Third World’, Social Service Review, 45 (1971), 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 The concept of indigenization has recently appeared in the international literature of social work. Although poorly defined, it suggests that new, culturally related concepts such as conscientization and animation should be incorporated into social work theory in developing countries. See for example Kendall, K., ‘Dream on Nightmare: The Future of Social Work Education’, International Social Work, 16:2 and 16:3 (1973), 5–15Google Scholar; Lasan, D., ‘Indigenization with a Purpose’, International Social Work, 19:1 (1976), 24–6Google Scholar; and Resnick, P. R., ‘Conscientization: An Indigenous Approach to International Social Work’, International Social Work, 19:2 (1976), 21–9.Google Scholar

15 Report of the Expert Group Meeting on the Determination of Social Development Content in Social Work Education Curricula, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, 1974, p. 3.Google Scholar

16 See for example Lewis, W. A., Development Planning, Allen and Unwin, London, 1966Google Scholar; Meier, R. I., Development Planning, McGraw Hill, New York, 1965Google Scholar; and Waterston, A., Development Planning, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1965.Google Scholar

17 See for example Gish, O., Planning the Health Sector, Croom Helm, London, 1975Google Scholar; Pusic, E., Planning the Social Services in Developing Countries, Mouton, The Hague, 1965Google Scholar; Reubens, E. P., Planning for Children and Youth within National Development, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva, 1967Google Scholar; and United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, Problems of Social Development Planning, New York, 1964.Google Scholar

18 United Nations, ‘Unified Socio-Economic Development and Planning’, International Social Development Review, no. 3, 1971.Google ScholarPubMed

19 Y. W. Gerima, ‘Social Planning: A Challenge to Social Work Education’, in International Association of Schools of Social Work, op. cit.

20 Hokenstadt, M. C., ‘Preparation for Social Development: Issues in Training for Policy and Planning Positions’, International Social Work, 18:1 (1973), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Stein, op. cit. p. 5.

22 Younghusband, E., ‘The Future of Social Work’, International Social Work, 16:4 (1973), 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Khinduka, , ‘Social Work in the Third World’, p. 69.Google Scholar

24 Butrym, Z. T., The Nature of Social Work, Macmillan, London, 1976, p. 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 See for example Broady, M., Planning for People, National Council for Social Service, London, 1968Google Scholar; Glennerster, H., Social Service Budgets and Social Policy, Allen and Unwin, London, 1975Google Scholar; and Kahn, A. J., Theory and Practice of Social Planning, University of Columbia Press, New York, 1969.Google Scholar

26 See for example Gurin, A., ‘Social Planning and Community Organization’, in National Association of Social Workers, Encyclopaedia of Social Work, New York, 1971, pp. 1, 324–37Google Scholar; Morris, R., ‘Social Planning’, in Maas, H. (ed.), Five Fields of Social Service, National Association of Social Workers, New York, 1966Google Scholar; and Perhnan, R. and Gurin, A., Community Organizers and Social Planners, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1972.Google Scholar

27 Jagannadham, op. cit. p. 157.

28 Ibid.

29 Khinduka, S. K., ‘Bureaucracy in Social Welfare Administration’, in Khinduka, Social Work in India, p. 212.Google Scholar

30 Ibid. p. 216.

31 Kendall, K. (ed.), Population Planning and Family Dynamics: A New Responsibility for Social Work Education, Council on Social Work Education, New York, 1971, p. 61.Google Scholar

32 Stein, op. cit. p. 7. As Stein puts it, ‘Social work cannot as a profession make its views count in social policy or even develop its own cadre of personnel capable of participating technically in policy development and social planning until there is some defined field of practice that is accepted, validated and respected by society.’