Rural development management in Nepal, Part I: Coordination in the Rasuwa‐Nuwakot Integrated Rural Development Programme
| Published date | 01 January 1987 |
| Author | Walter E. J. Tips,Yadav N. Dhungel |
| Date | 01 January 1987 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230070104 |
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Vol. 7. 43-58 (1987)
Rural development management in Nepal, Part
I:
Coordination in the Rasuwa-Nuwakot Integrated
Rural Development Programme
YADAV N. DHUNGEL and WALTER E. J. TIPS
Division
of
Humun Serrlemenrs De~~elopnient. Asiun
Insrirute
of
Technolog)
SUMMARY
Rural development management in Nepal has been criticized for more than a decade now
on the grounds
of
the country's weak aid-absorbing capacity, administrative slowness and
poor project management. Though several reforms
of
the rural development planning
and management systems have been staged, at present coordination in integrated rural
development projects remains weak. The paper reports on the empirical findings
of
research
on mechanisms, procedures, organizational arrangements and problems of coordination.
Although the country's environment, and its socioeconomic and cultural constraints. may
negatively influence smooth operations in implementing integrated programmes, several
policy considerations for improvement may be formulated. Among these, organizational
reform with decentralization and reduction
of
the number of offices involved, strengthening
the resource management system, especially budget release and personnel motivation, and
a
more integrated method of policy, programme and project formulation are the issues
considered most important by the government officers themselves. Part
I1
will appear in
vol.
7,
no.
3
of
this journal, and examines the implementation and management
of
rural
development in the Karnali and Bheri districts
of
the Mid-Western Development Region
of
Nepal.
INTRODUCTION
During the past two decades many Third World countries have been experimenting
with rural development programmes that seek to improve the socioeconomic well-
being of the rural people. At present a considerable number of them have launched
rural development programmes, under various specialized agencies, such as the
Village Development Programme (Bangladesh), Bicol River Basin (Philippines),
Samuaul Un Dong (Republic of Korea), Integrated Rural Development Pro-
gramme (Pakistan), Small Farmer Development Programme (India), Rural Job
Creation Programme (Thailand) and Integrated Rural Development Programme
(Nepal). The integrated rural development (IRD) programmes in many developing
countries have met with numerous problems over the past two decades. These
have more often than not led to complete failures or to partial successes rather
than to systematic attainment of the objectives
of
the programme. While some
Yadav Dhungel is a lecturer, Public Administration Campus, Institute
of
Management. Tribhuvan
University. Kathmandu. Dr Walter
E.
J.
Tips is Assistance Professor, Divison
of
Human Settlements
Development, Asian Institute
of
Technology, GPO
Box
2754, Bangkok 10501, Thailand.
0
1987
by John Wiley
&
Sons,
Ltd
027 1-2075/87/0 10043-
16$08.00
44
partial successes have led to optimism, Ruttan (1984),
in
a review of IRD, remarks
that generalization of successful small-scale
or
pilot projects
to
larger areas
or
populations has invariably met
with
very limited success. The reason might be
that projects become instruments
of
decentralized central line agencies to exert
central control, thereby dominating the mechanisms of local-level communities to
mobilize themselves and their resources for development (Ruttan, 1984). Centra-
lization, even
if
decentralized offices or district- and local-level government exist,
and the problem of coordination
in
its various aspects, have been in the focus of
research of development management. However, decentralization,
in
whatever
form
it
is cast, raises the question of coordination.
In
the recent past, virtually every analyst of rural development has emphasized
the importance of coordination for the effective and timely accomplishment of
intended objectives. In the opinion
of
Crener
ef
al.
(1984) IRD projects do
not successfully coordinate and organize the involvement required by external
government agencies. The technical departments involved
in
the implementation
of IRD projects are often
in
conflict, and decisions are constantly being postponed.
This is true for most of the Third World countries pursuing IRD programmes.
It
is even more the case for developing countries such as Nepal. Besides ecological,
topographical, socioeconomic and political factors, the underlying causes
of
lack
of progress
in
formulating a development strategy for rural development are
mainly organizational
or
institutional and managerial. Furthermore a well-defined
operational strategy for rural development is missing. According
to
an Asian
Development Bank/His Majesty’s Government
of
Nepal (ADB/HMG,
1982)
report, while targets have been set
in
different plans
for
different activities,
projects are not planned
in
a way that would ensure achievement of the objectives.
Administrative bottlenecks and other major administrative problems such
as
an
absence of a well-thought-out mechanism of coordination have hindered develop-
ment programmes to a large extent.
Integration and coordination of various programmes and appropriate linkages
for
optimal utilization of local resources consistent
with
the plan objectives, local
needs and environmental balance, are necessary
in
any
IRD
programme.
In
such
situations of interaction and interdependence of agencies efficient action comes
about through coordination only. However, coordination is often not considered
to be a necessary precondition, or
is
lacking due
to
conflicts between the various
sectoral line agencies, resulting
in
the complete absence of well-structured systems
or mechanisms of coordination.
In
the opinion of Glovinsky and Dhungel (1984)
coordination problems are still adversely affecting the smooth implementation of
IRD programmes. Furthermore there is a lack of workable coordination mechan-
isms for the participating agencies. Similarly, according to Pradhan (1982),
in
his
performance appraisal of rural development programmes, poor performance is
due to the lack of coordination, non-cooperation
among
the line agencies and
ineffectiveness of the office of the project coordinator. Moreover, the problems
of coordination have been highlighted
in
ADB/HMG
(1982)
with
a simple illus-
tration of an irrigation component
in
the development programme: the most
serious constraint greatly limiting the intended impact of irrigation is the absence
of effective coordination between the agencies involved.
Thus, a detailed analysis of coordination and its various aspects related to IRD
programmes should enable more effective formulation and implementation of
Y.
N.
Dhungel
and
W.
E.
J.
Tips
To continue reading
Request your trial