This article is an apt follow-up to the previous post.
Boiled down, the argument Honadle makes is that the Rural
Collaborative Investment Program (RCIP) of 2008, although comprehensive and
intended to give local communities and regions the “capacity” to “tailor” rural
development programming, failed because it was never appropriated any
funds.
This piece not only brings up the question of top-down
development and the method by which it failed, it also highlights the concept
of bureaucratic hierarchy and how policy
affects distribution of resources (or in this case, the lack thereof).
One further note of interest is the logical framework
identified and used:
Input à
output àpurpose
à goal
“the purposeful application of inputs, certain activities will take place that convert those
inputs or resources into outputs (goods, services, programs) and that—by doing
this—an identifiable goal (s) will be achieved.”
LR>>Your posts keep leading me to a mismatch problem: mismatched scale between structural networks and requisite levels of access, trust, and reciprocity needed for social networks to function. Solving stakeholder (i.e., ordinary people in 'local' places) problems is desired outcome.
ReplyDeleteScale implies space, time, and distance. Scale, in context of community, also implies something about the character and quality of social relationship and interaction.