Economic Opportunity Mailing List Archive

["Dick Tinsley" <<address removed>>]

Continuing the commentary of the Agriculture Development Hierarchy

One of the impacts of the development hierarchy is that project 
conceptualization and design is normally done at the top donor level with 
expectation of acceptance at the bottom smallholder level.  A real big jump!

The projects are then agreed upon by the clients with the implementation 
facilitated by the implementers.  That is jumping down 2 and back 1.

The difficulty comes in the feed back needed to adjust the projects and advance 
the conceptual development.  Since continued funding is usually dependent on 
support for the donor strategic interests, the feed back tends to support the 
success and gloss over any problems in implementing. These then reinforces the 
concept that basic objectives are effective and results in the 
institutionalization of concepts appear good in the ideal sense but may have 
considerable problems in long term sustainability.

This problem would be more severe in cases, such as USAID, where implementation 
is done largely through contractors.  This further insulates the donor 
designers from the bottom level implementation problems.  Donor field visits 
are normally accompanied by facilitators and clients and concentrate on the 
success.  If not continued funding would be a problem.

Naturally, my best example would the high level of reliance on farmer 
organizations, etc. but it could easily apply to other issues.  Perhaps this is 
a good justification for 2 year post funding follow-up to see how sustainable 
the sincere and diligent efforts of the implementers has been and provide the 
donors the feedback they need to evolve projects toward more assured winners.

Is this a reasonable concept?  Does it explain some of the problems being 
encountered in developing agriculture.

Dick Tinsley