Navigating the system vs. changing the system: a comparative analysis of the influence of asset-based and rights-based approaches on the well-being of socio-economic disadvantaged communities in Scotland

Asset-based and rights-based approaches have become leading strategies in Scottish community development. The asset-based approach seeks to help communities develop skills to provide self-help solutions. The rights-based approach seeks to help communities claim rights and make governments more accountable. These two approaches are based on contrasting conceptions of empowerment, employ opposing methods and lead to different outcomes. However, there is no empirical research that has comparatively assessed the two. This thesis represents the first in-depth exploration of the comparative effects of asset-based and rights-based approaches on the well-being of communities experiencing socio-economic disadvantage in Scotland. The study follows a qualitative design that includes a comparative case study of two projects: the AB project (representing the asset-based approach), and the RB project (representing the rights-based approach). The study also includes the perspectives of a wider pool of practitioners working in a range of community development organisations in Scotland. In total, forty-five participants across seventeen organisations have participated in this study. To assess the influence of asset-based and rights-based approaches upon well-being, this thesis employs a pluralistic account that combines objective and subjective indicators across three dimensions: material, social and personal. The specific well-being framework employed is the result of combining White’s (2010) well-being framework for the development practice and Oxfam Scotland’s (2013) Humankind Index. The results of this study indicate that asset-based and rights-based approaches have important contrasting effects on well-being. The asset-based approach seems to have a more positive effect on project participants and across a higher number of well-being indicators. The rights-based approach has more observable effects on material well-being and a higher impact on the wider community, but across fewer indicators. My findings also suggest that employing these approaches in community development settings brings different advantages and disadvantages. The asset-based approach seems easier to apply and to prove the positive outcomes on those involved. This approach, however, risks sustaining the status quo and, by doing so, misses out the opportunity to achieve more transformational outcomes. The right-based approach seems able to address structural disadvantages more effectively. Yet, it is more difficult to apply and to prove a positive impact. Organisations, practitioners, and communities applying it also face higher costs. These findings have significant implications at the practice level. Asset-based and rights-based approaches are rarely combined in UK community development settings. As a result, practitioners are often left in the position of having to make a trade-off between helping improve the well-being of project participants and helping improve the well-being of the wider community. In theory, practitioners could avoid this trade- off by combining these approaches. In practice, this is not always possible. Asset-based and rights-based approaches represent opposing theories of change. There are also legal and funding requirements that prevent organisations from following a combination of both. Given this, understanding the comparative impact of applying asset-based and rights-based approaches in community development is critical