Rural development management in Nepal, Part II: Implementation in the Karnali—Bheri Integrated Rural Development Programme
| Date | 01 July 1987 |
| Published date | 01 July 1987 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230070302 |
| Author | Pradip Prasad Upadhyay,Walter E. J. Tips |
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT. Vol.
7, 239-259 (1987)
Rural development management in Nepal, Part 11:
implementation in the Karnali-Bheri Integrated
Rural Development Programme
PRADIP PRASAD UPADHYAY AND WALTER
E.
J.
TIPS
The Divison
of
Human Settlements Development, Asiun Institute
of
Tcchnology
SUMMARY
This paper
looks
at the implementation
of
rural development management
in
Nepal,
especially how the implementation
of
the Karnali-Bheri Integrated Rural Development
Programme is managed. The empirical data are provided by the officials themselves, and
touch on organizational competence and responsibilities, the role
of
district line agencies.
management mechanisms, inter-organizational cooperation, local leadership and local sup-
port of organizations and people. It is concluded that several reorganizations
of
power
relationships, resource allocation and administrative mandates are needed
to
improve the
feasibility
of
effectively managed implementation
in
the Karnali-Bheri programme.
In
a
wider context, rural development management
in
Nepal will only be possible
if
the develop-
ment administration reforms itself for greater management and implementation potential.
INTRODUCTION
In the companion paper to the present article (Dhungel and Tips.
1987)
we dealt
with coordination in an integrated rural development programme in Nepal, the
Rasuwa-Nuwakot IRD programme. It was found that virtually all the development
management and planning problems that had been identified by Wildavsky
(
1972)
more than
10
years ago, could be observed in the IRD undertaking, perhaps
with the exception of the externally induced policy and planning formulation
improvements. The paper started from an organizational management perspective
which, due to a lack
of
empirical data, can only be loosely framed into working
hypotheses.
The present paper takes a detailed look at the implementation problems,
especially those caused by the interplay
of
a large number of agencies, found in
another more recent IRD project, the Karnali-Bheri Integrated Rural Develop-
ment (K-BIRD) Programme. The conceptual underpinnings may be found
in
the
literature on integrated rural development but, more importantly, also
in
literature
on
policy and planning implementation which are traditionally omitted
in
work
Pradip Prasad Upadhyay is with the Secretariat
to
the National planning Commission
of
Nepal. Dr
Walter E. J.Tips is Assistant Professor, Division
of
Human Settlements Development. Asian Institute
of
Technology, GPO Box
2754,
Bangkok
10501.
Thailand.
0271-2075/87/030239-21$10.50
@
1987
by
John
Wiley
&
Sons, Ltd.
240
P.
P.
Upadhyay and
W.
E.
J.
Tips
on rural development management. While the construction
of
a watertight frame-
work is not possible, some working propositions have been put forward that have
proven useful to develop new perspectives on rural development management.
INTERORGANIZATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION
Traditionally, integrated rural development has been the preferred strategy
of
many Asian governments since the
1970s.
After some initial failures it was reco-
gnized that a specific implementation strategy would be necessary in view
of
the
number of parties involved in the undertaking and the complex scheduling exercise
of
a necessary long implementation period. Implementation has been attempted
using various strategies, but, as Ruttan
(1984)
and Crener
et
al.
(1984)
remark,
effective project execution and sustained improvements will anyhow depend on
the development of the local institutional capacity to mobilize the limited resources
available and to effectively manage the planned change. Thus, local- or intermedia-
te-level organizations and applied organizational management will be in focus, as
will inter-organizational coordination.
In the so-called implementation literature, which looks specifically into issues
arising after plans and policies have been formulated, issues related to the imple-
menting agencies, the environment
of
implementation and the characteristics
of
the policy or plan have long been recognized. Van Meter and Van Horn
(1975)
and Bunker
(1972).
among others, have developed models and concepts for the
implementation process including the organizational structure
of
implementors,
management and statutory or legal provisions, inter-organizational coordination
and people’s or constituency group participation. In turn, an effective organiz-
ational structure and coordination depend on such factors as competencies
of
staff
or agency units, the degree
of
hierarchical control, the communication network
and the linkages between agencies. These characteristics can become the subject
of research in public, institutionalized development planning and management
just as they can be researched in private corporations. Some, mostly theoretical,
work has also been done in public policy-making and executive organizations;
however, empirical work based on the implementation perspective in rural devel-
opment management is very scarce. It is nevertheless relevant as we hope to prove
in
this empirical research based
on
some working hypotheses derived from the
implementation literature.
METHODS AND STUDY AREA
The
Karnali-Bheri
IRD
Programme and the area
Administratively Nepal is divided into
live
development regions,
14
zones and
75
districts. The K-BIRD Programme initially was planned to cover seven districts
of two zones: Karnali (two districts) and Bheri (five districts) in the Mid-Western
Development Region (MWDR), where there is a total
of
three zones and
15
districts. But now the programme is envisaged to cover three districts: Jumala in
To continue reading
Request your trial