From Commodity to Capability Fetishism: Human Development as a Harmonisation of Social and Territorial Cartographies

The development discourse has been thrown into a disarray and paradigmatic quagmire by the impasse of neo-liberal transnational social cartographies. There are calls within the development discourse fraternity to deterritorise the concept of development so as to grapple with it sufficiently and effectively. Failure to adhere to this call, various development discourses have been accused of methodological territorialism. This paper uses critical hermeneutics to argue that the trajectory from Trickle Down and Basic Needs Theory to Human Rights, Capability and Functionings approaches to development is fundamentally a paradigm shift from territorial to social cartographies. This paper further argues that despite the significance of social cartographies occasioned by neo-liberal globalisation, territorial cartographies as envisaged by structuralists, post-structuralists, post-developmentalists, post-colonialists and global ethnographers are still vital because of their thorough critique of the power discourse behind structures that disadvantage individuals. The paper contends that in order to realise engendered development, it is pertinent to ultimately look at the individual who is the basic ingredient of a moral society (ethical individualism) as well as the structures and strictures that disempower and vulnerablelise individual moral agents.

Community development has been hijacked

Community development lacks a proper theory. This paper postulates that the reason for this intolerable state being that community development has been hijacked by charity organizations and politicians with ‘do good’ intentions, simply because it lacks proper scientific theory that offers some element of prediction in the outcome. Current development approaches are revisited and the basic needs theory proposed as a useful theory that takes community development beyond just various ‘approaches’. It merges the complexities of the community development concept into a distinct scientifically based theory that includes an assessment technique (Priority Index), which makes it possible to identify and prioritize the basic or ‘true’ needs in a community. The theory equates addressing the basic community needs with the ‘art of timing’, which means doing the right thing at the right time is the only real solution to trigger the upward development spiral. In doing so, the basic needs theory postulates that once the identified basic needs in the target community are brought within their locus of control, the upward development spiral is triggered and a predictably new set of ‘higher level’ needs will emerge. This process is essential to the change principle inherent to the community development process.

The Community–Based Poverty Reduction Projects (CPRP), Poverty Reduction and Development in Yobe State Nigeria: A Pilot Study Report

This paper examines the impact of the Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) in alleviating poverty in selected benefiting communities in Yobe State. Purposive and simple random sampling was used to select the area of study and respondents. Questionnaires, Focus Group Discussion and Key Informants Interview were also used to collect data. The data was presented by the use of simple percentage and frequency tables, graphs and charts. Data was analysed through the use of ANOVA. The discourse, guided by the Basic Needs Theory found out that even though the concept for which the CPRP was adopted has been achieved, e.g. community participation and provision of 838 micro-projects in the whole of Yobe State, the micro-projects or basic needs infrastructure implemented are not adequate and wide-spread enough to reduce poverty in concrete terms. It however reduced the stress of people in accessing some basic needs e.g. water supply in some communities. The paper recommends that to effectively achieve poverty reduction, there should be sustained commitment of funding and maintenance of projects by respective stakeholders for holistic and widespread approach to poverty reduction in Yobe State. Nonetheless, this paper maintains that the CPRP poverty reduction intervention is a viable tool for the provision of basic needs infrastructure in rural communities to set the path for development of Yobe State.

Self-Determination Theory

People with impairments often lack social connectedness, feel a lack of control, and struggle with regaining competence for various tasks after an acquired disability and rehabilitation challenges. Use of self-determination theory (SDT) and basic needs theory to examine these three needs appears particularly relevant for people with impairments and by extension to investigate if sport can help individuals meet their needs in each area. This chapter discusses the body of knowledge in disability sport using SDT. Research using SDT in disability sport appears more advanced than research examining other theories. For instance, researchers have tested theoretical propositions such as whether balancing the three areas of autonomy, competence, and relatedness helps promote optimal well-being or whether the absolute importance of meeting each need is more valuable. Research examining links between self-esteem, coping skills, anxiety, and SDT constructs has advanced the knowledge base in this area. Disability coaching research has used SDT to examine if autonomy-supportive coaching promotes well-being and better performance.

MOTIVATING ENGLISH TEACHERS BASED ON THE BASIC NEEDS THEORY AND AN EXPECTANCY THEORY

There are two main motivation theories. a hierarchy of basic needs theory,� and an expectancy theory. In a Hyrarchy of basic needs theory, Maslow has stated that the basic needs as a main behaviour direction are structured into a hierarchy. There are five basic human needs.� The first: Physiological needs such as: salary, bonus or working condition. The second: the safety needs, such as: safe job environment, job security or health cover. The third, social needs, such as �union and team work. The next is self esteem, such as getting an award, medal, certificate or any other recognisition. Then the last is self actualization, for example is by providing an opportunity to share knowledge, skills and eprerience. The evaluation of this theory are: there is no spiritual needs as human basic needs is a main weakness of this theory. Then it is possible that different level of� needs� have to be satisfied in the same time, or not in hierarchy level or, not always have to be fulfilled in order. The next motivation theory is an Expectancy Theory. This theory is based on three main factors. The first factor is: English teachers will be motivated to work harder if they have a good perception to their own competences in accordance with their job. The second, individual motivation depends on the rewards given when they finish a� particular job. Finally, it also depends on their regards to the rewards given from the job that they do. Expectancy theory is a good theory, however, it is not easy to be implemented because the principals should provide various types of reward to satisfy the expectation of their English teachers. Considering the strengths and weaknesses of these two theories, it is better to combine both of them in the practice to get more effective results.

Estilos interepersonales del entrenador, frustración de las necesidades psicológicas básicas y el burnout: un análisis longitudinal en futbolistas (Coach interpersonal styles, frustration of basic psychological needs and burnout: a longitudinal analysis

Basado en la Teoría de las Necesidades Psicológicas Básicas se puso a prueba un modelo con la siguiente secuencia: Estilo interpersonal de apoyo a la autonomía y estilo controlador del entrenador èFrustración de las necesidades psicológicas básicas èel Burnout (BO). Participaron 177 futbolistas, con edades que entre 15 a 24 años (M = 17.81; DT = 1.98), quienes completaron los instrumentos que evaluaban las variables del estudio (CCBS, CBS, PNTS y ABQ). La fiabilidad de los instrumentos fue satisfactoria excepto la sub-escala de frustración de la autonomía del tiempo 1. Los jugadores percibieron más el estilo de AA que el EC de su entrenador, una baja FNPB y BO en el tiempo 1 (T1) y 2 (T2). Sólo se encontraron diferencias significativas entre el T1 versus T2 en la percepción del estilo de AA del entrenador siendo más baja en el T2. El AA del T1 estuvo significativamente relacionado de manera negativa con el EC, con la FNPB, la frustración de la autonomía (FA), frustración de la competencia (FC) y frustración de las relaciones (FR) y el BO en el T1 y T2, sin embargo, esto no fue así con el AA del T2. Los resultados del Modelo A revelaron que AA del T1 fue un predictor negativo y el EC fue un predictor positivo de la FNPB del T2, y la FNPB del T2 actuó como un predictor positivo del BO. Por su parte el Modelo B reveló que el AA del T1 fue un predictor negativo y el EC del T1 fue un predictor positivo de la FA, FC y FR. Finalmente, la FA y FR actuaron como predictores positivos del BO. Abstract. A model based on the Basic Needs Theory was tested in accordance with the following sequence: Coach’s Autonomy Support and Authoritarian styles èBasic psychological need frustration èBurnout (BO). A total of 177 football players aged 15 to 24 years old (M = 17.81; DT = 1.98) took part in the study. The athletes filled questionnaires related with the research variables (CCBS, CBS, PNTS, and ABQ). Instruments’ reliability was satisfactory, except for Autonomy frustration subscale at first measurement session (T1). Players perceived that their coaches used more AA than EC style. In addition, they showed low FNPB and BO at T1 and at the second measurement session (T2). Significant lower scores for perceived AA style were found at T2 compared to T1. AA at T1 was significantly and negatively related with EC, FNPB, Autonomy Frustration (FA), Competence Frustration (FC), and Relatedness Frustration (FR), whereas it was negatively related with BO at both T1 and T2. Nonetheless, this did not happen for AA at T2. Results of Model A showed that AA at T1 was a negative predictor of FNBP at T2 whereas EC at T1 was a positive predictor of FNBP at T2. In addition, FNPB at T2 positively predicted BO. Modelo B outcomes revealed that AA at T1 was a negative predictor of FA, FC, and FR, whereas EC at T1 was a positive predictor of those variables. Finally, FA and FR positively predicted BO.