Policy,
Projects,
and
Programs
for
Development

[Essay
Assignment
–
RDS33806]

Steisianasari
Mileiva,
#841108572070


MAK*
MSc
Program,
Wageningen
University


March
2010




*
MAK:
Management
of
Agro‐Ecological
Knowledge
and
Social
Change

 The
Big
Catch
Exercise:


Arcadia’s
Coastal
Fisheries
Development
Project


 



I. Setting
the
Scene1



In
a
country
named
Arcadia,
plans
to
improve
coastal
fisheries
have
been
lingering
in

the
air
for
many
years.
Recently,
the
International
Fisheries
Institute
(IFI)
of
the
United

Nations
Food
and
Agriculture
Organization
formulated
a
project
proposal
to
develop

coastal
 fisheries
 at
 the
 communities
 of
 Alpha
 and
 Beta
 in
 Kappa
 District
 of
 Arcadia.

The
 proposal
 was
 submitted
 to
 the
 Arcadia
 National
 Planning
 Commission.

Subsequently,
the
Institute
of
Social
Studies
(ISS)
at
the
university
in
Arcadia’s
capital

city
was
commissioned
to
prepare
a
report
on
the
social
implication
of
the
plan.



In
 a
 country
 named
 Arcadia,
 development
 planning
 has
 been
 criticized
 for
 its
 top‐
down
approach
from
specialists
in
National
and
International
bureaus
and
its
failure

to
 understand
 local
 circumstances
 and
 public
 interests.
 As
 a
 revitalization
 effort
 to

involve
 (ordinary)
 Arcadians
 in
 planning
 processes,
 in
 1990
 the
 National
 Planning

Commission
established
The
Special
Projects
Advisory
Committee
(SPAC)—a
group
of

informed
citizens,
applying
their
experience
and
common
sense
to
the
evaluation
of

proposals
and
delivering
concrete
advice
on
how
they
should
be
put
into
effect.



I
was
one
of
those
Arcadians
participating
in
SPAC,
reviewing
the
aforementioned
IFI’s

and
ISS’s
documents.
After
quite
lengthy
discussions,
we
agreed
to
break
up
into
four

working
groups
(A,
B,
C,
and
D)
to
prepare
evaluation
of
the
IFI’s
proposal
and
present

each
group’s
implementation
proposal.
I
was
in
Group
B.




In
this
paper
I
will
summarize
the
focus
of
my
group’s
evaluation
and
implementation

proposal,
 present
 the
 classroom
 dynamic
 during
 presentation
 of
 the
 four
 groups,

elaborate
on
creative
scenario
and
reflect
on
the
Big
Catch
exercise,
and
provide
an

end
remarks.






II. The
Appeal
of
a
Gradual
Approach2



Group
 B
 focused
 their
 evaluation
 and
 proposal
 on
 the
 third
 component
 of
 the
 IFI

development
 package3
 for
 Alpha
 and
 Beta.
 It
 covered
 the
 following
 issues:
 (1)

Reorganization
 of
 fishing
 activities,
 (2)
 Reorganization
 of
 fish
 processing,
 and
 (3)

Reorganization
of
the
National
Fishermen’s
Cooperative
(NFC).






























































1

Extracted
from
The
Big
Catch
exercise
(Robertson,
1995).

2

Presentation
slides
as
presented
in
class
on
29
January
2010
is
enclosed.

3

 The
 IFI
 team
 proposed
 the
 following
 development
 package
 for
 Alpha
 and
 Beta:
 (1)
 Provision
 of
 basic

infrastructure,
 including
 construction
 of
 harbor
 and
 road
 link,
 built
 and
 maintained
 by
 the
 Public
 Works

Department
 with
 funding
 from
 central
 government;
 (2)
 Construction
 of
 a
 community
 center,
 funded
 jointly
 by

the
Ministries
of
Health
and
of
Community
Development
and
Social
Welfare;
costs
of
operating
these
facilities
to

be
 shared
 with
 the
 local
 community;
 and
 (3)
 Construction
 of
 a
 fish
 processing
 factory,
 and
 provision
 of
 a

mechanized
fishing
fleet
of
40
vessels,
both
provided
on
amortization
to
the
local
community
under
the
aegis
of

the
National
Fishermen’s
Cooperative
Union.


 Group
B
was
mainly
concerned
with
the
long‐term
social
benefits
of
the
project.
Thus,

it
 proposed
 a
 gradual
 implementation
 by
 phasing
 in
 the
 new
 boats
 and
 the

operational
of
the
factory.
Furthermore,
it
believed
in
the
merits
of
involving
women

and
youth
group
through
the
cooperative
setting
that
manage
the
project.




A. Reorganization
of
Fishing
Activities



Group
B
proposed
a
gradual
phasing
out
of
the
140
old
boats
(manually
propelled
old

boats)
and
the
phasing
in
of
the
40
new
boats
(motorized
vessels)
over
3
years
time
of

project
implementation.




Table
1.
Gradual
Phasing‐Out
and
Phasing‐In


 Now
 Year
1
 Year
2
 Year
3
>

OLD
BOATS
 140
 114
 72
 0

Men
employed
 420
 342
 216
 0

Catch
(tons)
 2,100
 1,710
 1,080
 0



NEW
BOATS
 0
 12
 28*
 40

Men
employed
 0
 96
 224
 320

Catch
(tons)
 0
 3,000
 7,000
 10,000


 *
flexible
number
of
deployment,
depends
on
fishermen’s
enthusiasm
in
the
second
year



Advantages
of
the
above
planning
as
laid
in
Table
1
are
that
it
would
allow
time
for

project
management
to
better
handle
the
following
issues:
(i)
elimination
of
old
boats

which
 are
 an
 integral
 part
 of
 a
 family
 tradition
 in
 Alpha
 and
 Beta
 communities,
 (ii)

recruitment
of
new
crew
members
for
the
new
motorized
boats
that
preferably
have

equal
opportunities
of
people
from
both
Alpha
and
Beta,
(iii)
skills
transfer
from
the

motorized
boat
expert
(from
other
area)
to
the
local
seamen.



The
deployment
of
boats
are
planned
to
be
flexible,
to
allow
learning
approach
in
the

process.
If
enthusiasm
is
high,
then
deploying
more
new
boats
in
the
second
year
is

possible.
In
the
complete
proposal
of
Group
B
(in
the
literature),
various
alternatives

are
 laid
 out
 for
 the
 phasing
 out
 of
 the
 old
 boats.
 This
 includes:
 (i)
 opportunities
 of

wage
 earning
 as
 new
 crews
 in
 the
 new
 boats,
 (ii)
 disposal
 of
 one
 old
 boat
 for
 every

three
new
crewmen
proposed,
(iii)
higher
price
for
fresh
fish
catch,
(iv)
lottery
for
all

those
 relinquishing
 their
 boats
 to
 the
 NFC,
 and
 (v)
 preserving
 few
 of
 the
 finer

specimens
as
the
nucleus
of
a
local
museum.





B.
Reorganization
of
Fish
Processing



Processing
 the
 fish
 catch
 has
 been
 the
 role
 of
 the
 women
 in
 Alpha
 and
 Beta

communities.
The
traditional
method
was
sun
curing.
This
is
about
to
change.
In
order

to
 increase
 the
 income
 of
 the
 two
 villages,
 the
 project
 will
 build
 a
 fish‐processing

factory
 in
 Beta.
 Thus,
 it
 is
 desirable
 to
 involve
 women
 as
 many
 as
 possible
 in
 the

factory
from
the
earliest
stage
to
build
up
a
reliable
and
experienced
workforce.
This

is
also
to
gradually
but
surely
transfer
women
from
the
traditional
way
of
curing
and

selling
fish
to
the
mechanized
and
more
commercial
approach.
Shift
work
mechanism

will
be
introduced
so
that
women
can
adjust
their
domestic
routines,
childcare,
etc.




In
 regard
 to
 the
 economic
 and
 financial
 arrangement
 of
 the
 factory,
 it
 suggests

deferring
 capital
 and
 interesting
 payment
 of
 the
 factory
 for
 the
 first
 2
 years
 and

 redistributed
 over
 the
 23
 remaining
 years
 of
 amortization.
 Capital
 charge:
 0.12
 per

annum
over
23
years
(1%
increase
from
the
rate
proposed
by
IFI).
In
this
arrangement,

factory
profit
would
be
low
in
the
first
year
but
would
be
doubled
in
the
second
year

(Picture
1).
That
significant
amount
of
profit
in
the
second
year
is
at
excellent
timing

because
at
the
second
year,
more
fishermen
would
be
unemployed
due
to
decreasing

amount
 of
 old
 boats,
 thus
 the
 NFC
 can
 use
 the
 profit
 to
 develop
 subsidiary

employment
(ie.
mechanical
repair
facilities)
for
those
who
are
unemployed.




Picture
1.
Rescheduled
Annual
Account
for
Factory








Picture
2.
Project
Profits
Accruing
to
NFC








 C.
Reorganization
of
the
NFC



It
is
mentioned
in
the
ISS
report
that
more
people
should
share
in
ownership
of
bigger

boats.
This
was
interpreted,
as
the
communities
would
like
to
have
ownership
in
the

project,
not
only
on
the
boats,
but
also
in
the
fish
factory.
Thus
the
NFC
will
be
divided

into
2
sub‐divisions—one
for
the
employee
of
the
fish‐processing
factory
and
one
for

the
fishermen.




Membership
will
constitute
a
capital
share
as
a
means
to
reinforce
commitment
to
the

project
 because
 in
 this
 way,
 members
 have
 stake
 on
 the
 project.
 This
 arrangement

would
also
suitable
to
attract
youth
involvement
because
of
the
25
years
maturation

period
for
the
factory
and
10
years
for
the
boats.
In
addition,
it
is
also
intentional
to

give
strong,
distinct
economic
and
political
powers
to
women
as
they
have
the
same

opportunities
as
men
in
the
capital
share.





Above
 all,
 through
 this
 cooperative
 setting,
 there
 is
 a
 bold
 and
 explicit
 intention
 to

build
 the
 obligation
 to
 cooperate
 between
 people
 in
 Alpha
 and
 Beta.
 Managing
 and

taking
part
in
the
cooperative
would
be
a
space
to
exercise
and
improve
cooperation

of
Alpha‐Beta.
It
was
noted
that
past
failures
have
occurred
mainly
because
of
weak

cooperation.





III. Classroom
Dynamic



The
 tutorial
 session
 of
 the
 Big
 Catch
 Exercise:
 Project
 Appraisal
 started
 with

presentations
 by
 the
 representatives
 of
 the
 four
 different
 groups
 that
 acted
 as
 the

four
 different
 SPAC
 working
 groups.
 As
 each
 group
 one
 by
 one
 presented
 their

proposal,
 the
 different
 standpoints
 unfolded.
 Group
 A
 supported
 100%
 the
 IFI

proposal
and
pushed
for
fast
implementation;
Group
B
supported
the
plan
with
minor

adjustments
 (gradual
 approach)
 as
 elaborated
 above;
 Group
 C
 supported
 the
 plan

with
major
adjustments
(the
need
for
consulting
the
beneficiaries);
and
Group
D
did

not
support
the
plan.




In
 my
 opinion,
 the
 four
 different
 proposals
 portrayed
 Escobar’s
 (1995)
 point
 that

development
started
to
function
as
a
discourse,
that
it
created
a
space
of
creation
and

articulation
 of
 certain
 knowledge,
 concepts,
 theories,
 and
 practices.
 The
 proposals

were
 packed
 with
 terms
 such
 as
 local
 knowledge,
 long‐term
 social
 benefit,

participation,
and
ownership.
Furthermore,
he
mentioned
that
development
was
and

continues
to
be
(mostly)
a
top‐down,
ethnocentric
and
technocratic
approach,
which

treated
 people
 and
 cultures
 as
 abstract
 concepts,
 statistical
 figures
 to
 be
 moved
 up

and
 down
 in
 the
 charts
 of
 progress.
 That
 perception
 came
 into
 reality
 as
 I
 observed

presentation
 from
 Group
 A
 and
 surprisingly,
 the
 bigger
 part
 of
 my
 own
 group’s

proposal.




Group
 A’s
 proposition
 of
 fast
 (top‐down)
 implementation,
 immediately
 became
 the

less
 popular
 one.
 It
 was
 mainly
 seen
 as
 raw
 planning
 with
 careless
 assumptions.
 For

example,
it
proposed
to
immediately
demolish
the
140‐manual/old
boats
and
deploy

the
 40‐motorized/new
 boats
 in
 the
 first
 year
 without
 thorough
 considerations
 on

fishermen’s
 livelihood
 change.
 As
 a
 member
 of
 Group
 B,
 I
 may
 be
 biased
 in
 my

opinion,
but
Group
B’s
gradual
approach
was
seen
as
more
convincing
than
Group
A,

particularly
 due
 to
 the
 various
 background
 thinking
 (including
 economic
 analysis
 of

 the
fish
factory
and
gradual
plan
to
phase
in
the
new
boat)
that
support
the
proposal.

The
 moment
 Group
 C
 presented
 their
 proposal,
 it
 was
 clear
 that
 they
 uphold
 the

notion
 of
 local
 knowledge.
 Proposal
 of
 Group
 A
 and
 B
 were
 immediately
 seen
 as

lacking
of
this
attempts
to
understand
the
existing
local
knowledge
to
be
included
in

the
design
of
the
proposal,
of
consulting
with
the
local
people
in
Alpha
and
Beta
in
the

project
 planning.
 Group
 D’s
 anti‐project
 standpoint
 was
 a
 surprise
 (at
 least
 for
 me),

they
 were
 totally
 not
 believing
 and
 being
 very
 critical
 toward
 the
 IFI
 proposal.
 They

stated
 that
 they
 were
 boldly
 against
 top‐down
 planning
 approach
 and
 advised
 a

learning
 approach
 to
 project
 planning—have
 more
 time
 to
 understand
 the
 local

situation
first.




Afterward,
it
was
followed
with
a
debate
session
between
the
four
groups
where
each

group
 tried
 to
 defend
 their
 approaches.
 Then,
 after
 a
 one
 minute
 closing
 statement

from
 each
 of
 the
 group’s
 representatives,
 a
 voting
 was
 conducted
 upon
 the
 four

different
proposals.
The
voting
resulted
in
a
tie
with
equal
votes
of
11
for
Group
B
and

Group
D.
As
representative
from
Group
B,
I
was
quite
satisfied
with
that
voting
result.

I
 took
 it
 as
 an
 appreciation
 to
 the
 clear
 and
 rather
 convincing
 gradual
 approach
 of

Group
 B
 which
 was
 supported
 by
 detailed
 planning
 of
 boat
 deployment,
 factory

amortization,
and
the
cooperative
set
up.
In
addition,
I
was
also
pleased
with
the
fact

that
 the
 other
 half
 of
 the
 class
 were
 choosing
 to
 be
 very
 critical
 upon
 development

projects
 and
 opted
 not
 to
 have
 any
 project
 at
 the
 moment,
 before
 thorough

interdisciplinary
 research
 to
 understand
 better
 the
 possible
 effects
 on
 ecological,

technological,
 economical,
 and
 societal
 change
 in
 Alpha
 and
 Beta.
 This
 perspective

may
 be
 strengthened
 by
 prior
 lectures
 in
 this
 course
 regarding
 project
 planning
 and

implementation
that
induced
such
critical
lenses.






IV. Creative
Scenario
and
Reflection
on
the
Exercise



Reflecting
on
the
end
result
of
the
voting,
I
see
that
a
possible
(creative)
scenario
to

further
this
Coastal
Fisheries
Development
project
in
communities
Alpha
and
Beta
is

to
 integrate
 the
 approaches/thinking
 of
 Group
 B
 and
 Group
 D’s
 proposals
 and
 to

propose
 it
 as
 an
 experimental
 project.
 As
 an
 experimental
 project,
 it
 should
 have

careful
 continuous
 planning,
 close
 monitoring
 and
 evaluation,
 and
 detachment
 from

various
political
importance.
In
the
future,
the
experimental
project
in
Alpha
and
Beta

can
be
up
scaled
to
the
level
of
a
pilot
project,
demonstration
project,
then
to
various

coastal
communities
in
Arcadia
or
even
in
the
neighboring
countries
of
Arcadia.




The
 SPAC
 members
 can
 come
 up
 with
 the
 advice
 to
 conduct
 a
 Participatory
 Rural

Appraisal
(PRA)
in
Alpha
and
Beta
to
improve
the
project
proposal.
The
proposed
PRA

should
 be
 complemented
 with
 some
 innovations
 to
 take
 on
 board
 Mosse’s
 (1994)

critical
 analysis,
 namely:
 (1)
 the
 public
 nature
 of
 PRA
 may
 make
 the
 production
 of

local
 knowledge
 subject
 to
 the
 effects
 of
 ‘officializing
 strategies4’
 and
 ‘muting5’;
 (2)



























































4

Mosse
(1994)
used
this
term
when
observing
that
the
perspective
and
interests
of
the
most
powerful
sections

in
 a
 community
 are
 likely
 to
 dominate,
 not
 through
 overt
 competition
 or
 confrontation,
 but
 through
 an

expression
 of
 consensus.
 Mosse
 was
 referring
 
 ‘officializing
 srategies’
 to
 Pierre
 Bourdieu
 (1977)
 where
 he

elaborated
that
term
when
the
particular
interests
of
key
sections
of
the
community
become
identified
with
the

general
interest.

5

 This
 can
 happen
 for
 example
 to
 those
 people
 who
 consider
 themselves
 inferior
 or
 having
 less
 ‘power’
 than

other
people
who
seems
to
be
superior/powerful/dominant
in
the
public
meeting—thus
the
first
would
tend
to

 PRA
 may
 generate
 information
 or
 knowledge
 that
 is
 also
 shaped
 by
 the
 concerns
 of

‘outsiders6’
 and
 their
 interaction
 with
 ‘insider’
 community
 members;
 and
 (3)
 PRA

techniques
may
be
unable
to
encode
certain
kinds
of
knowledge
that
are
embedded

in
practical
expertise.
A
practical
suggestion
is
to
deploy
women
facilitator
to
lead
the

session
with
women
group
in
Alpha
and
Beta
in
an
in‐house
setting
and
with
sufficient

break
 time
 or
 several
 short
 sessions
 so
 that
 the
 women
 can
 easily
 arrange
 time

between
their
daily
household
responsibilities.




The
 merit
 of
 retaining
 the
 gradual
 approach
 of
 Group
 B’s
 proposal
 is
 because
 in
 my

opinion,
 it
 incorporated
 the
 thinking
 of
 Rondinelli
 (1993)
 on
 uncertainty
 and

complexity
 of
 project
 implementation.
 Pointing
 out
 one
 example;
 on
 one
 hand
 it

mentioned
 definite
 numbers
 for
 the
 phasing‐in
 of
 new
 boats,
 fish
 catch,
 and
 men

employed;
 but
 on
 the
 other
 hand,
 it
 explicitly
 mentioned
 that
 additional
 new
 boats

could
be
added
during
the
course
of
the
second
year
if
enthusiasm
was
running
high.

That
 idea,
 when
 complemented
 with
 explicit
 resources
 allocated
 for
 a
 continuous

monitoring
 and
 evaluation
 arrangement
 would
 reflect
 the
 learning
 approach
 of

project
planning
and
implementation.
The
proposal
would
then
need
to
be
clearer
on

what
 are
 the
 measures/indicators
 for
 enthusiasm
 increase,
 when
 to
 measure,
 and

how
to
measure
them.




I
 concur
 with
 Robertson
 (1995)
 that
 this
 exercise
 has
 a
 parallel
 with
 “real”

development
planning;
in
which
project
design
and
evaluation
is
about
imagining
and

visualizing
 remote
 people,
 places,
 and
 problems
 and
 attempting
 to
 take
 control
 of

their
 future,
 which
 is
 actually
 uncertain.
 At
 least,
 amongst
 member
 in
 my
 group,
 I

observed
 that
 we
 were
 excited
 when
 discussing
 about
 the
 plan,
 calculating
 certain

number
of
new
boats
for
the
first,
second,
and
third
year;
analyzing
the
amortization

strategy,
 imagining
 the
 organization
 of
 the
 cooperative.
 We
 were
 excited
 in

transforming
 people,
 places,
 and
 problems
 to
 numbers,
 words,
 and
 graphics
 in
 our

proposal
and
presentation
slides—taking
part
in
the
top‐down
planning
mindset.




In
 addition
 to
 the
 above
 point
 on
 uncertainty
 during
 project
 implementation,
 here
 I

would
like
to
point
out
that
the
IFI
proposal
or
even
the
SPAC’s
review
and
suggestion

has
not
included
a
monitoring
and
evaluation
plan.
Rondinelli
(1993)
reminded
us
that

the
ability
of
development
planners
to
predict
and
control
the
outcomes
of
programs

and
projects
under
conditions
of
uncertainty
is
limited,
thus
methods
of
detecting
and

correcting
 errors
 (continuous
 monitoring
 and
 evaluation);
 and
 generating
 and
 using

knowledge
 as
 experiments
 in
 progress
 (extracting
 lessons
 learned
 and
 conduct
 re‐
design);
 and
 modifying
 actions
 as
 opportunities
 and
 constraints
 appear
 during

implementation
 (project
 re‐structuring—such
 as
 reducing
 or
 adding
 sub‐
components/sub‐activities,
revising
interest
rate,
simplifying
project
documents,
etc.)



I
 see
 that
 the
 SPAC
 concept
 of
 Arcadia
 government
 is
 embracing
 democracy
 and

providing
 the
 venue
 for
 participatory
 planning
 of
 a
 development
 project.
 It
 is
 in
 line

with
Betz
(2006)
who
supported
policy
making
or
project
planning
process
that
tried

to
 capture—the
 opinions/perspectives/suggestions
 from
 laymen.
 Betz
 built
 his


























































mute/not
 say
 anything
 even
 if
 they
 noticed
 something
 important,
 especially
 when
 the
 issues
 involve
 those

powerful
people.


6

The
outsider
can
include
those
who
implement
the
PRA—the
facilitators.
There’s
a
concern
that
the
‘created’

participation
process
has
started
at
the
moment
the
facilitators
designed
the
PRA.


 argument
 around
 the
 concept
 of
 Post
 Normal
 Science—a
 policy‐making
 procedure

where
decisions
are
fueled
by
scientific
expertise
that
is
enriched
with
laymen
broad

perspectives
right
from
the
start
of
the
research
activities.
This
is
in
line
with
the
aim

of
SPAC
to
seek
opinions
and
deliberation
that
represents
the
thinking
of
the
society

and
 that
 society
 consists
 of
 laymen’s
 broad
 perspectives
 that
 have
 the
 potential
 to

correct
mistakes,
which
result
from
narrow‐mindedness
of
scientists
or
policy
makers.





V. End
Remarks:
The
Big
Catch
Exercise



I
 praise
 this
 exercise!
 I
 agree
 with
 Robertson
 (1995)
 that
 case
 studies
 have
 always

played
a
central
part
in
the
teaching
and
study
of
development.
Furthermore,
This
Big

Catch
 exercise
 introduced
 me
 to
 a
 practical‐oriented
 learning
 approach
 of
 a
 case

study.
 I
 was
 chatting
 with
 some
 classmates
 after
 the
 exercise,
 they
 were
 expressing

the
shame
enthusiasm
as
I
had.
We
applauded
the
idea
of
having
an
imaginary
case

study,
being
in
the
shoes
of
an
ordinary/laymen
review
panel,
encountering
different

perspectives
of
a
project,
and
defending
our
perspective
even
though
we
think
that
it

has
irrelevant
argumentations.




Of
course,
more
time
for
the
debate
session
would
have
been
better
to
have
a
richer

discussion.
 The
 class
 can
 also
 be
 reminded
 every
 now
 and
 then
 to
 build
 their

arguments
 on
 the
 basis
 of
 various
 development
 theories/concepts
 that
 they
 have

learned
 so
 far
 in
 the
 course
 or
 by
 reflecting
 and
 sharing
 their
 personal
 practical

(work/on
the
ground)
experiences
in
the
field
of
development
that
are
relevant
to
the

discussion
points.




Based
 on
 my
 limited
 work
 experience
 in
 the
 field
 of
 project
 preparation
 and

management,
the
entire
package
of
the
exercise
gave
a
slight
taste
of
the
real
project

appraisal—especially
 the
 debate
 session
 where
 we
 were
 scrutinized
 with
 detailed

technical
 questions,
 which
 also
 challenged
 us
 to
 (quickly)
 go
 through
 the
 various

project
 documents
 and
 recall
 theoretical
 explanations
 to
 provide
 a
 more
 convincing

answers.
I
hope
this
exercise
remains
in
the
course
design
or
even
added
to
more
than

one
time.










References



Betz,
 G.
 2006.
 Prediction
 or
 Prophecy?
 The
 Boundaries
 of
 Economic
 Foreknowledge
 and

Their
Socio‐Political
Consequences.
Retrieved
on
9
February
2010
from


http://www.springerlink.com/content/u5v443vh45614483/fulltext.pdf



Escobar,
 A.
 1995.
 The
 Problematization
 of
 Poverty:
 The
 Tale
 of
 Three
 Worlds
 and

Development.
In
Encountering
Development:
The
Making
and
Unmaking
of
the
Third

World.
Princeton
University
Press,
New
Jersey.




Mosse,
D.
1994.
Authority,
Gender
and
Knowledge:
Theoritical
Reflections
on
the
Practice
of

Participatory
Rural
Appraisal.
Development
and
Change
Vol.
25,
497‐526,
Institute
of

Social
Studies.
Blackwell
Publishers,
Oxford.




Robertson,
 A.
 F.
 1995.
 The
 Big
 Catch:
 A
 practical
 introduction
 to
 development.
 Westview

Press,
Colorado
and
Oxford.




Rondinelli,
D.
A.
1993.
Development
Projects
as
Policy
Experiments:
An
adaptive
approach
to

development
administration.
Routledge,
London
and
New
York.