The planning and management of integrated rural development in Drylands: Early lessons from Kenya's arid and semi‐arid lands programmes
| Author | Steve Wiggins |
| Date | 01 April 1985 |
| Published date | 01 April 1985 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230050202 |
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
VOI.
5,
NO.
2.91-108
(1985)
The planning and management of integrated rural
development in drylands: early lessons from Kenya’s arid
and semi-arid lands programmes
STEVE
WIGGINS
University
of
Reading,
U.
K.
SUMMARY
In
Kenya
a
new generation
of
area-based, multisectoral rural development programmes has
been started, targetted
on
the country’s extensive arid and semi-arid lands
(ASAL).
By mid
1983, six such programmes were operational, each supported by
a
foreign donor and
implemented by the Government
of
Kenya. Six years after the detailed planning of the first
programme began, the record looks patchy. District level planning and co-ordination hold
promise, and some programme activities are going well. However, problems
of
slow and
cumbersome planning and mobilization, a lack
of
community involvement
in
planning, too
few technical successes, and remote prospects for institutionalizing the programmes if and
when expatriate support is withdrawn are apparent. Behind these problems lie
a
number
of
basic obstacles, including the structure and orientation of the government’s lack
of
support
for the drylands among politicians, and the technical difficulties
of
raising dryland
production. Faced with these obstacles, the
ASAL
programmes look set to
run
into
continuing problems. Overcoming them will depend
on
both the success of recent government
moves to deconcentrate, and patient support from both the government and the donors.
Historically the prospects for such support are poor.
INTRODUCTION
Growing awareness in the
1960s
that rural development involves intervention in a
multi-faceted system led to development programmes designed to improve multiple
elements
of
the system simultaneously. Such programmes came to be known as
integrated rural developments programmes (IRDps). Given the technical complexity
of
planning IRDps and the scarcity
of
skilled planners
to
carry out the exercise, most
IRDps were confined to subnational units and these became area-based development
programmes. By the early
1970s
virtually every developing country had one or more
IRDP, often with funding assistance from one
or
other aid donor.
Evaluations, a good example being Lele’s assessment of African development
projects (Lele,
1975),
have identified a number of problems with the planning and
implementation of IRDps,
of
which two deserve special mention. First, with their
concentration
of
skilled managerial and technical manpower-often with
Mr. Wiggins is in the Department
of
Agricultural Economics and Management, University
of
Reading,
4
Earley Gate, Whiteknights Road, Reading RG6 2AR, UK. Material for this paper was gained while
working for the Overseas Development Administration in Kenya, but the views expressed here do not
necessarily reflect those
of
ODA. Thanks
go
to
Doug Thornton for his
helpful
comments.
0271-2075/85/020091-18$01.80
0
1985 by John Wiley
&
Sons, Ltd.
92
Steve
Wiggins
expatriates occupying the senior posts-and of funds on a limited area, the
programmes could not hope to be replicated on a wider scale. Honour was often
satisfied by dubbing them ‘pilot’ or ‘experimental’ programmes.
Second, they ignored the managerial capacity
of
local administrations, being
concerned primarily with technical matters-the possible at the expense
of
the
feasible. The ascendancy of the technical over the managerial was enshrined
in
the
common practice of setting up semi-autonomous agencies for individual IRDps, free
of the encumbrances of normal governmental operating rules and practice.
Although this facilitated programme operation in the short-run, it made it nearly
impossible to institutionalize IRDps within existing development efforts in the long
run.
As
the deficiencies became apparent, and as IRDps ran into a welter of
unforeseeable second-generation problems
of
rural development, developing
countries and aid donors became disenchanted with integrated rural development.
One by one programmes were ended, and attention was switched to new concerns
such as basic needs, decentralization, local community participation and the
management of rural development.
IRD
IN
KENYA
Kenya’s experience with integrated rural development was more benign than some.
From
1971
to
1977
the Special Rural Development Programme (SRDP) operated in
six Divisions (sub-District units with populations between
20,000
and
75
,OOO)
spread
throughout the country, in five of which area programmes were sponsored by
Britain, FAO, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United States. SRDP was
specifically designed as an experimental programme with a low-key approach.
Unlike many other African integrated programmes, SRDP tried to keep within
established administrative structures, making marginal improvements to rural
management at the local level (Chambers,
1974;
Morgan,
1979)
which were meant to
be institutionalized.
SRDP experiences were mixed, varying greatly between each
of
the six
programme areas, and between the activities pursued in any given area. The
Programme attracted much attention (see the evaluations by IDS,
1975;
Holtham
and Hazlewood,
1976;
Lele,
1975)
and on balance received favourable comment,
although alloyed by justifiable criticism of weaknesses (Chambers,
1983,
Chap.
2).
Nevertheless, SRDP was abandoned in
1977
as donors withdrew their support and
the Government
of
Kenya (GK) decided against continuing to fund the programme.
The donors, it appears, became tired of SRDP, despondent at the gap between the
original conception and the messy reality in the field, and frustrated by the evident
half-hearted support
of
GK for SRDP. Indeed, the single most critical failure of the
programme was its inability to establish widespread support in Nairobi. SRDP fell
foul of many senior civil servants because of its genesis within one Ministry, its close
connection with the mistrusted academics of the University
of
Nairobi, and its high
expatriate profile (Holtham and Hazlewood,
1976).
Notwithstanding the disillusionment with IRDps in both Kenya and the rest
of
the
world, the attraction of area-based development persists, because:
To continue reading
Request your trial