Success. What does this even mean? In today’s world of ever increasing accountability and public scrutiny, we seek to measure the success of every activity. Community economic development is not exempt from this either. But how do you measure the success of a community?
There are over hundreds and hundreds of First Nation, Métis, and Inuit communities across Canada. Some are a couple dozen people big, while others number in the thousands. Some are remote, others are situated on main highways. Some have traditional occupations (hunting and trapping), while others have CEOs and large corporations. Which ones are successful? How do you define it?
Some have tried to take the “socio-economic conditions” approach. There is some merit in this approach where people are compared against the ideals of urban life. Here we look at access to health care, access to clean water, access to transportation, access to markets, employment rates, income levels, education levels, perceptions of safety, etc. Certainly some of this can shed a bit of light on the issue, but it does not tell the entire story.
People have tried to use the “economic measures” approach, whereby they examine how many local businesses are in operation, GDP, local revenues, income levels, employment rates, etc. In reality, this is limited to looking at economic activity, which is still useful information. However, it does not tell the entire story either.
At the end of the day, the vast majority of our approaches are comparative in nature to some ingrained ideal. These ingrained ideals are taught to us, culturally, by mainstream society from a very early age. Some of these include:
· For Individuals:
o personal wealth
o home ownership or size/appearance
o type of car or truck
o employer or position at work
· For communities:
o Entertainment options
o Shopping centres
o Traffic
o Number of BIG businesses located in the community
Granted these types of “indicators” are mostly taught to children growing up in urban centres. However, the people working in governments, making program and policy decisions, conducting ‘research,’ are typically those in urban centres.
For some, these indicators might resonate. For others, they may leave a bad taste in the mouth. The key here is that people do not define what they mean by economic development. They do not define what success looks like to them, and they do not ensure their views are in alignment with the underlying values of the community.
I have seen many communities, including one First Nation that is a fly-in community (call it community A) with plenty of access to in-home running water. In this community, there are almost no employment options, rampant welfare, violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, marital unfaithfulness to the extreme, child neglect, etc. I have seen another community that is also a fly-in community (call it community B), but that has less than half their people connected to running water. Despite the employment options being few, this community does not share the same level of social dysfunction.
Why? What causes one to have different results than the other? Many people use some of the aforementioned approaches to defining economic success and conclude that both communities are failing. While community B certainly has its challenges, I disagree. I believe that community B is a successful community. Many of the people there are happy in spite of the challenges of water access and distant health care.
What happened to community A? Did they lose hope when outside urbanites came in and repeatedly told them they are failures and that they must strive to be like the big cities? Were they driven to despair when their own definitions of success was trampled on by well-meaning, but misguided bureaucrats, and replaced with an urbanite definition of success?
Often the presence of a flat screen TV or IPod Touch or IPad in the home is a sign of individual economic success. But is it really? Is it a success when we spend more of our time melting into a couch in a zombie like state while being spoon fed mental fodder? Is it truly a success when our children turn away from their soccer balls and become sedentary in front of their tech toys and video games?
Or is it more successful when they do not have these distractions and instead, walk along side the older generations, learning skills and knowledge?
There is no single answer, as it will vary person to person according to their cultural upbringing, personal and communal views. One thing for certain, measures of success are pointless if success has not been defined.
For program or project managers, and especially for government workers, it is absolutely critical to listen to a community about how THEY define success and shape the measurement of success from that.
