“ LOCAL PARTICIPATION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ”       By- J.K Nanda

It is generally seen that the participation of beneficiaries in rural development projects is frequently advocated but seldom put into practice. Basically rural development is a strategy designed to improve the economy and social life of rural poor (1). It has become part of the Government's policies following the failure of the traditional quantitative approach to economic development which has emphasised that rapid growth in aggregate output would by itself reduce poverty or pave the way for balanced development (2). Hence rural development involves extending the benefits of development to the poorest, among those who seek a livelihood in the rural areas. Rural Development Programme Channels funds to local communities for investment in small scale irrigation, livestock, fisheries ponds, rural roads, village social infrastructure, and so on. Local participation was conceived as a way of improving the quality and effectiveness of these investments. In many cases, decision making without the involvement of the beneficiaries misdirected funds, while the participatory approach succeeded in improving their allocation. So a close examination of various cases indicates that the economic performance of projects with local participation is superior. The Program Integral pararel Desarrollo Rural (PIDER) of Mexico is one such example.

                                          The main target of rural development programme's approach to local participation is to bring the planners and decision makers out of their offices and into the concerned communities. There, in consultation with villagers and through a joint assessment of local potential, available options, and perceived needs, the priorities are sorted out and investment proposals are formulated and prepared for secondary screening, technical preparation and final funding. The methodology consists of three phases (a) field community assessment, (b) preliminary programmes. In each phase, the roles of technical agencies and local groups are well defined. Specific procedures ensure that both the sociological and the technical aspects of investment planning are taken into account. They prescribe what must be done at the grass-roots level and also what technical-economic feasibility analysis should be undertaken by the specialized agencies.

            During the first phase of field assessment several activities are carried out. Data are collected regarding the population, infrastructure, and resources in the area; an assessment is made of past programmes; each selected locality is examined physically; meetings are held with local groups; investment proposals are chosen; and an assessement report is prepared of the proposed strategy. The planning team gets familiar with the village when it also informs the villagers of the objectives of the study. A survey is also conducted orally of local needs and priorities. Then meetings with the community are the next step, when either selected issues are discussed with separate groups or all the information of the community interest is discussed with a large group. Not surprisingly, investment requests put forward villagers during this type of field diagnosis are often different from those proposed by the technical experts. Preliminary programming is the direct responsibility of the technical agencies. They must also make a careful economic and technical analysis of the investment proposals, to ensure that are technically feasible and economically profitable. During the last phase the individual proposals are consolidated into the local rural development programmes according to a set of strategy criteria for integrated area development (3).

            Participation is also of crucial importance for monitoring the physical execution of rural development programmes. The involvement of local communities in selecting and executing investments is logically complemented by empowering them to monitor execution effectively. Achieving efficient participation in monitoring requires that village communities be regularly informed about the objectives, execution time tables, and costs of local investment programmes. Beneficiaries have a particular advantage in their ability to control and monitor construction and delivery, since they are always on the spot. The interests of both planners and beneficiaries require that when investments are wasted, construction is delayed, or quality is sacrificed, those responsible should be taken to task.

References :

1.                         World Bank Rural Development Sector Policy Paper, February, 1978.

2.                         G. Parthasarathy, "Integrated Rural Development Concepts, Theoretical base and Contradictions", in Gupta D.B., Halan Y.C., Desai P.B. (eds), "Development Planning and Policy", Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi, 1982.