potential donors, cultivating, and soliciting them, often with formal presentations developed to appeal to the specific interests of the potential philanthropist or wealthy social activist. Integral to this, particularly with donors who are capable of and interested in making substantial contributions to the organization, the development officer must be prepared to provide tax information on laws and options for giving. Processing and acknowledging gifts large and small, and developing mechanisms for the formal recognition of donors, as well as exercising discretion when the donor seeks anonymity are the development officers' responsibilities. Strategic planning designed to further the institution's mission, and administering the office of development, are often additional functions of the development officer and his or her staff. (See fund-raising.)
Bloland, Harland G. and Rita Bornstein, 1991. "Fund-raising in Transition: Strategies for Professionalism." In Dwight F. Burlingame and Lamont J. Hulse, eds., Taking Fund Raising Seriously: Advancing the Profession and Practice of Raising Money. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Nonprofit Sector, pp. 103-123.
Burlingame, Dwight F. and Lamont J. Hulse, eds., 1991. Taking Fund Raising Seriously: Advancing the Profession and Practice of Raising Money. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Nonprofit Sector Series.
DEVOLUTION. The transfer of powers from a central to a local, regional, or peripheral authority. In the twentieth century, the most obvious example of the devolution of power is contained in the process of decolonization. With the winning of independence from the British Crown by India and Pakistan in 1947, there began an unprecedented concession of political and (to a degree) economic control to the successor regimes nurtured during the latter stages of empire. Between the late 1940s and the late 1980s, only the Soviet Union -- itself the last of the nineteenth-century European empires -- failed to devolve power from the political core to the periphery. Decolonization is, however, as extreme example of devolution. For the most part, devolutionists argue about tax-raising rights, regional autonomy, educational integrity, linguistic purity, and cultural safeguards.
The call for devolution has three main manifestations. The first is from the peripheral area. This has been variously evident from the 1960s onwards in such diverse areas as Quebec and Scotland; in both, the demand was for the proper recognition of national identity. The claim was, and remains, that ethnic, religious, linguistic, and cultural differences have not been sufficiently protected by the dominant political culture, respectively in these examples of Canada and the United Kingdom. In its most extreme form, the demand for devolution takes the form of a terrorist-based campaign for independence, as in the Basque areas of France and Spain.
The second push is from the center itself, usually by political parties that have invested heavily in the virtues of local government; the Liberal Democratic Party in the United Kingdom is typical of this, a political institution that places a relatively low value on the unitary state. Throughout Western Europe, such political parties or groups are predisposed to federal solutions to national or regional government. This view holds that democracy is best served where local concerns are given to those with local responsibilities. The third view is an essentially economic one; the People's Republic of China from the mid 1980s showed this to an unusual extent. There, in seeking a transition from Maoist, centralist dogmas, the policy was to create regional hegemony, albeit within an overall national design, to facilitate that economic takeoff into sustained growth so long forecast for China. Reflected in the 1984 agreement on the formal handback to China of Hong Kong by the British, this version of devolution was characterized by the phrase "One Nation, Two Systems;" since then, China has allowed the development of a considerable degree of regional diversity, autonomy, development, and authority.
Another way of looking at devolution in the last decade of the twentieth century is to see it as a challenge to the primacy of the nation state. Since the rise of the modern international system, popularly dated from the Treaty of Westphalia ( 1648), the presumption has been that no rival to the national state was available for the provision of those most basic services to the people -- freedom from want and freedom from fear. Devolution accepts this to be true in the limited sense that the existing state system contains within it artificial states," encompassing more than one nation. These, it is argued, could better serve their peoples if they were broken up. To that extent, the call for devolution by national groups within existing states, while domestically disruptive, is not essentially revolutionary.
There is no perfect balance between the needs of centralism and the demands of the periphery. Power is something that tends to be taken rather than given: even where a central authority concedes power, the implication is that it can withdraw its concession. Within that assumption, devolutionists will always argue that more is better than less, centralists will argue the contrary, and the outcome will be determined by the price that the political traffic can bear.
DIMOCK, MARSHALL EDWARD (1903- 1991). Political science educator, public administration theorist, public servant, mentor, and distinguished author best known for his insistence that humanity and balance pervade the profession of public administration.