Do Groups Matter? Using a Wellbeing Framework to Understand Collective Activities in Northeast Thailand

Abstract

This paper is motivated by two key themes in international development: the recent surge of interest in wellbeing as the desired outcome of development, and the continuing promotion of group-based activities within development policy and practice. Drawing on findings from research conducted in Northeast Thailand, this paper discusses the development and implementation of a multidimensional framework, which was used to investigate how groups affect the wellbeing of individuals and the community. The research highlights the problematic nature of community groups, as there were often large gaps between aspirations and satisfaction with group membership. Through analysis of these findings, the value of using a wellbeing-focused framework is illustrated, as it provides a more comprehensive way of analysing the diverse and dynamic motivations, experiences and outcomes of group membership. Overall, the wellbeing approach results in greater understanding of the role of groups within the community and the development process.

“Living a good life”: conceptualizations of well-being in a conservation context in Cambodia

“…Well-being is a social construction; hence, it needs to be defined by the individuals and communities where well-being is to be assessed (Gough 2004, Schaaf 2010. Heterogeneity can occur geographically, but also along socioeconomic lines, including, but not limited to, gender, religion, wealth status, age, ethnicity, and livelihood type (Agarwal 2001).…”

A Systematic Literature Review on Entrepreneurship for Well-Beiing

“…More recent developments increasingly focus on the subjective aspects of well-being (e.g., Radcliff, 2005;Engelbrecht, 2014), which is argued to be conceptually different from objective well-being (e.g., Merz, 2002;Schaaf, 2010) but more difficult to measure (Benz, 2005). Nevertheless, there appears to be a wide agreement among scholars that well-being is multi-dimensional (e.g., Engelbrecht, 2014;Verbakel & DiPrete, 2008), and hence makes the use of a single measure inadequate to inform policies (e.g., Shucksmith, et al, 2009) or reflect the in-terrelated nature of sub-scales of well-being (e.g., Becchetti & Castriota, 2010;Cruz-Doña & Marti-na, 2000).…”

El progreso social, el individualismo y el enfoque de capacidades: el rol de las estructuras sociales, grupos e instituciones

“…Para estudios empíricos del lado coercitivo de las capacidades colectivas ver(Schaff 2010) y (Godfrey-Wood y Mamani-Vargas 2017).…”