This is such a complex issue, and one I am interested in. It is so easy to make mistakes in 'community development' - mistakes are almost inevitable, but need to be worked through. I wonder if you are too critical in some of what you have said.
Although it would be best for actual members of a downtrodden community to lead/organise change, sometimes this just doesn't happen, and it takes someone from outside, with a different perspective, to be the catalyst. Of course, sometimes they get it very wrong, but that doesn't mean it can never work. But it requires a person of tremendous empathy and insight.
The danger, I think, is usually a misunderstanding of the complexity of the problems. And this is where the local knowledge is required. The ideal thing is for local people to take ownership, but that might require a catalyst, to open people's eyes to the possibilities. Change requires hope, which is a quality that many people have had beaten out of them.
Although I don't know much about the communities you refer to, I wonder if the point about 'just calling a plumber' is naive. It sounds like the obvious solution to a wealthy outsider. But perhaps the people don't have enough money to pay a plumber? Perhaps their surroundings are so habitually run-down they no longer have the imagination to desire or instigate anything better, or to look after it properly once it is made better? Perhaps the underlying problem is psychological/emotional/societal and throwing money at it would only change the appearance of things, not the root problem.
The only positive example you refer to seems to be purely about money, and is not an example of a failing community being turned around.
Can a purely capitalist approach solve all the ills of a poor community when, for example, people don't have the education or health or motivation to do a job, if jobs were made available?
I am not a communist (I have seen the suffering that wrought in Romania) and I have more questions than answers. But I wonder if it is right to assume that pure capitalism is the closest system to the gospel message of hope and redemption. Jesus did not say to the rich young man 'set up a business to employ the poor (and make yourself money)'. He said 'sell your possessions and give to the poor and come follow me.'
I think the most significant thing in what he says is not the giving of money to the poor (a temporary help at best), but the abandoning of all to follow Jesus. And to follow Jesus means to go where he went - to minister among the poor, the lame and the prostitutes, the people excluded from society's shiny mechanisms. To become a part of their life and give your own life for them, to bring hope and change in their hearts, not just provide them with a job.
Commenting by HaloScan
