192
We see here the seedbed of ideas for achieving quality of life in towns and how
ignorance of the principle of counterbalance can lead to considerable wellbeing
costs. There is growing recognition that economic factors alone do not contribute to
wellbeing (Diener et al. 2010). While research shows a link between income and
positive life evaluations, these results may be moderated by values (Burroughs and
Rindfleisch 2002; Ng and Diener 2014). This means that it cannot be assumed that
economic wellbeing equates to sustainable community development, at least not
without taking into account the wider value structure of the community. This is
often significant when Western conglomerates enter indigenous communities and
values collide. Clear examples here are the indigenous communities of Latin
America, which have implemented policies of buen vivir (Gudynas 2011; Monni
and Pallottino 2015; Villalba 2013), which mirror closely our eight-component
model of wellbeing. Community values captured in frameworks like buen vivir
highlight the importance of notions of balance, harmony and multidimensionality to
small indigenous towns.
Critique of Top-Down Industry-Centred Approaches
Our conceptualisation of wellbeing has important implications for understanding
how communities can develop. It also provides a wider framework for evaluating
whether the espoused sustainable community development strategies of multinationals will sustainably benefit communities or not. The integration of emerging
regions into a global economy can involve certain “models of development” being
imposed from outside, which can conflict with local priorities, values and interests
upsetting social, psychological, cultural and spiritual aspects of wellbeing (Pike
et al. 2007). In turn this has led to the escalation of extreme poverty as well as
imbalanced community wellbeing and discontent (Cook 2006; Haan and Maxwell
1998; Harrison 2006; Kabeer 2000; Shankar and Shah 2003).
Poor and local communities often feel that they are not adequately consulted
and/or compensated for their loss of livelihood options (Dana et al. 2009; Surborg
2012). Large companies can be prone to management by extraction, exclusion and
expulsion (Banerjee 2011). A sense of community wellbeing at the local level can
be undermined by underestimating the significance of “place” and embedded sociocultural identity that resist commercial homogenisation (Dana et al. 2014). How the
local strategies of multinationals are treated by local governments is also important
as institutional strategies can help or hinder the development of entrepreneurship,
thus affecting the sustainability and evenness of development of towns (Williams
and Vorley 2015).
More specifically, large multinationals often base community development
around an industry, such as mining, tourism or agriculture, depending on the
resource supplies of a region. We refer to this as an industry-based approach to community development to connote an approach based around a key industry which
forms a nucleus for economic development. This industry-based approach can
determine path dependencies of the development of local communities leading
them on either a self-sufficient track or one that is dependent and wellbeing imbalanced (Williams and Vorley 2014). The vagaries of industrial cycles can leave these
communities vulnerable. Moreover, such development efforts can be lopsided
I. B. Franco and L. Newey
We see here the seedbed of ideas for achieving quality of life in towns and how
ignorance of the principle of counterbalance can lead to considerable wellbeing
costs. There is growing recognition that economic factors alone do not contribute to
wellbeing (Diener et al. 2010). While research shows a link between income and
positive life evaluations, these results may be moderated by values (Burroughs and
Rindfleisch 2002; Ng and Diener 2014). This means that it cannot be assumed that
economic wellbeing equates to sustainable community development, at least not
without taking into account the wider value structure of the community. This is
often significant when Western conglomerates enter indigenous communities and
values collide. Clear examples here are the indigenous communities of Latin
America, which have implemented policies of buen vivir (Gudynas 2011; Monni
and Pallottino 2015; Villalba 2013), which mirror closely our eight-component
model of wellbeing. Community values captured in frameworks like buen vivir
highlight the importance of notions of balance, harmony and multidimensionality to
small indigenous towns.
Critique of Top-Down Industry-Centred Approaches
Our conceptualisation of wellbeing has important implications for understanding
how communities can develop. It also provides a wider framework for evaluating
whether the espoused sustainable community development strategies of multinationals will sustainably benefit communities or not. The integration of emerging
regions into a global economy can involve certain “models of development” being
imposed from outside, which can conflict with local priorities, values and interests
upsetting social, psychological, cultural and spiritual aspects of wellbeing (Pike
et al. 2007). In turn this has led to the escalation of extreme poverty as well as
imbalanced community wellbeing and discontent (Cook 2006; Haan and Maxwell
1998; Harrison 2006; Kabeer 2000; Shankar and Shah 2003).
Poor and local communities often feel that they are not adequately consulted
and/or compensated for their loss of livelihood options (Dana et al. 2009; Surborg
2012). Large companies can be prone to management by extraction, exclusion and
expulsion (Banerjee 2011). A sense of community wellbeing at the local level can
be undermined by underestimating the significance of “place” and embedded sociocultural identity that resist commercial homogenisation (Dana et al. 2014). How the
local strategies of multinationals are treated by local governments is also important
as institutional strategies can help or hinder the development of entrepreneurship,
thus affecting the sustainability and evenness of development of towns (Williams
and Vorley 2015).
More specifically, large multinationals often base community development
around an industry, such as mining, tourism or agriculture, depending on the
resource supplies of a region. We refer to this as an industry-based approach to community development to connote an approach based around a key industry which
forms a nucleus for economic development. This industry-based approach can
determine path dependencies of the development of local communities leading
them on either a self-sufficient track or one that is dependent and wellbeing imbalanced (Williams and Vorley 2014). The vagaries of industrial cycles can leave these
communities vulnerable. Moreover, such development efforts can be lopsided
I. B. Franco and L. Newey