124 – Middles
This is necessary not so much because the reader might not understand the meaning of what we have said but because the success of
the argument that follows depends heavily on what they signify. Let
us attempt to answer our two questions in a paragraph each.
The variables involved in any development program I shall distinguish as
micro-variables and macro-variables. The former consist in the physical,
economic and social needs of the locality or region in which the program
is taking place; the latter in the economic, social and political priorities
of regional and central governments as well as of international donor
agencies. I shall here focus on the first of these. As early as 1959 it had
become clear to those who set up the Comilla project in what was then
East Pakistan that piecemeal introduction of the schemes and techniques
discussed above was not working (Harrison 1980: 83). Fertiliser and new
seed were of little use to a farmer who had no access to credit, little
knowledge of how to use these innovations or little incentive to risk new
techniques alone. The Comilla project organised co-operatives and
coordinated government assistance, education, public health, the
provision of credit, the introduction of new farming techniques and so
on. This approach later came to be known as ‘integrated rural
development’ (IRD), which tries to take all the relevant physical,
economic and social factors into account and to integrate their
introduction into a designated locality. Particular emphasis is placed on
the participation of all the people (what is now called ‘ownership’) and
on finding local solutions consistent with both traditional customs and
national development priorities (Lea and Chaudhri 1983: 13).
Lea and Chaudhri acknowledge that there have been some IRD
success stories and they attempt to isolate the ingredients for success
(p. 17). But more often than not such ‘integrated’ programs have not
lived up to expectations. Harrison (1980: 84) thinks this is because
‘integrated rural development . . . is not integrated enough’. But this is
to miss the crucial point: there are just too many factors which interact in
ways we do not sufficiently understand and may never understand, with
the result that there are limits on what can be ‘integrated’. The ‘dilemma
of complexity’, as Dichter (2003: 290) calls it, means that not only are
This is necessary not so much because the reader might not understand the meaning of what we have said but because the success of
the argument that follows depends heavily on what they signify. Let
us attempt to answer our two questions in a paragraph each.
The variables involved in any development program I shall distinguish as
micro-variables and macro-variables. The former consist in the physical,
economic and social needs of the locality or region in which the program
is taking place; the latter in the economic, social and political priorities
of regional and central governments as well as of international donor
agencies. I shall here focus on the first of these. As early as 1959 it had
become clear to those who set up the Comilla project in what was then
East Pakistan that piecemeal introduction of the schemes and techniques
discussed above was not working (Harrison 1980: 83). Fertiliser and new
seed were of little use to a farmer who had no access to credit, little
knowledge of how to use these innovations or little incentive to risk new
techniques alone. The Comilla project organised co-operatives and
coordinated government assistance, education, public health, the
provision of credit, the introduction of new farming techniques and so
on. This approach later came to be known as ‘integrated rural
development’ (IRD), which tries to take all the relevant physical,
economic and social factors into account and to integrate their
introduction into a designated locality. Particular emphasis is placed on
the participation of all the people (what is now called ‘ownership’) and
on finding local solutions consistent with both traditional customs and
national development priorities (Lea and Chaudhri 1983: 13).
Lea and Chaudhri acknowledge that there have been some IRD
success stories and they attempt to isolate the ingredients for success
(p. 17). But more often than not such ‘integrated’ programs have not
lived up to expectations. Harrison (1980: 84) thinks this is because
‘integrated rural development . . . is not integrated enough’. But this is
to miss the crucial point: there are just too many factors which interact in
ways we do not sufficiently understand and may never understand, with
the result that there are limits on what can be ‘integrated’. The ‘dilemma
of complexity’, as Dichter (2003: 290) calls it, means that not only are