Rural Regional Planning - Conyers

Rural Regional Planning:
Towards an Operational Theory

DIANA CONYERS
Centre for Development Studies, University College of Swansea, Singleton Park,

Swansea SA2 8PP, Wales, U.K.
Progress in Planning. Vol. 23, pp. 001-066, 1985. 0305~9006/85 %0.00+.50
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd.
Contents
1. The Role of Regional Planning in Rural Development 5

1.1. Introduction 5
1.2. The Case for a Regional Approach to Rural Development 7
1.2.1. Regionalplanning as a means of implementing national
plans 7
1.2.2. Regional planning as a means offacilitatingparticipation 8
1.2.3. Regional planning as a means of coordinating sectoral
activities 9
1.2.4. The role of regionalplanning in reducing inequalities 10
I. 3. The Role of the State in Rural Development 10
I. 4. Summarv 13
2. Regional Planning: An Overview 14

2.1. Introduction 14
2.2. Historical Origins and Dimensions 14
2.2.1. Conventional approaches to regionalplanning 16
2.2.2. Unconventional approaches to regional planning 19
2.3. Regional Planning and Rural Development 22
2.3. I. Planning profession 25
2.3.2. Regional development or regionalplanning 26
2.3: 3. Types of development policies 29
2.3.4. Intra-regionalor inter-regionalplanning 31
2.3.5. Type of region 32
2.3.6. Regional coverage 36
2.3.7. Planning for regions or by regions 37
2.4. Summary and Conclusions 38
3. Towards a Theory of Rural Regional Planning 41

3. I. Introduction 41
3.2. Basic Issues in Rural Regional Planning 42
3.2. I. Type of planning profession 42
3.2.2. Rural regional development or rural regional planning 43
3
4 Progress in Planning
3.2.3. Intra-regional or inter-regionalplanning 44

3.2.4. Type of region 44
3.2.5. Regional coverage 45
3.2.6. Planning for regions or by regions 46
3.2.7. Summary 46
3.3. Evidence from Theory 47
3.3.1. Conventional approaches 47
3.3.2. Unconventionalapproaches 51
3.3.3. Summary and conclusions 56
3.4. Evidence from Practice 56
3.5. Summary and Conclusions 59
Bibliography 61
CHAPTER 1
The Role of Regional Planning in Rural Development
1.1. INTRODUCTION
This monograph is concerned with the contribution of regional planning to rural

development. It begins by arguing that regional planning should play an important role
in rural development but that, for a variety of reasons, it has not done so in the past, and
it then proceeds to consider how its contribution could be increased in the future. It
suggests that, since most conventional approaches to regional planning have not been
specifically concerned with rural development, this requires a new approach, which
draws upon these conventional approaches but also upon other bodies of knowledge
and experience which are more directly relevant to rural development. In other words, it
examines the potential for, and the characteristics of, an approach to regional planning
which is directed specifically towards the needs of rural development. For want of a
better term, we shall refer to this approach as rural regionalplanning.
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the reasons why there is a role for regional
planning in rural development. First, however, a few words about the use of the terms
‘rural development’ and ‘regional planning’ are necessary, in order to avoid confusion
and misunderstanding in what follows, since both are commonly used in a variety of
different ways.
In a review of a book on rural development edited by John Harriss (Harriss, 1982)
Best (1983, p. 27) comments that:
“It is a bold author who entitles his book Rural Development. What, after all, is ‘rural development’? Is
it a field of study and research? Is it a form of state intervention to promote the well-being of rural
people? Or is it something which is happening anyway no matter what the academics or the bureaucrats
do?”
For the present purpose, it is only necessary to recognize that the term may be used to
cover any or all of these activities. Furthermore, it is not necessary to delve too deeply
into the related problems of exactly how one defines both ‘rural’ and ‘development’.
Thus Uma Lele’s relatively broad and vague definition of rural development as
‘improving living standards of the mass of the low-income population residing in rural
areas and making the process of their development self-sustaining’ (Lele, 1975, p. 20) is
sufficient as a starting-point for our discussion. However, two issues related to this
definition do require some elaboration before progressing any further.
Firstly, it is important to note the problems associated with the definition of ‘rural
5
areas’. These include what might be described as technical problems, such as the criteria
used to define ‘rural’, lack of the data needed to measure these criteria and the
arbitrariness of the boundaries separating ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ areas. However, they also
include conceptual or anaiytical problems, related to the interdependency of these so-
called ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ areas and the coexistence of both ‘rural’ and ‘urban’
phenomena in areas which are primarily ‘rural’. The current concern with rural
development arose in the 1960s in large part as a reaction to the over-emphasis on
urbanization, industrialization and ‘westernization’ in the 1950s and, as with all such
reactions, it tended to push trends in thinking to the other extreme, with the result that
the similarities, linkages and overlaps between *rural’ and ‘urban’ areas have tended to
be neglected (Apthorpe, 1983). This does not mean that the concept of rural
development, in the sense of improving the livelihood of low-income people in areas
which are predominantly rural, is invalid: merely that the complexities of rural areas
and rural-urban relationships must not be overlooked. This book is thus concerned
with the role of ~egiana~plan~ing in rural deve~apme~~, rather than with the pZa~ni~g of
rural regions - a subtle but significant distinction.
Secondly, Lele’s definition is useful because it emphasizes that rural development
involves more than just agricultural development. The need for multi-disciplinary and
‘integrated’ approaches to rural development is now well established, encouraged by the
activities of foreign aid donors, which have included many so-called ‘integrated rural
development* projects (Ruttan, 1976; FAO, 1978; Livingstone, 1979; ODI, 1979; Misra
and Sundaram, 1980; Montgomery, 1983). However, it warrants mention here because it
has particular implications in terms of the role of regional planning. We shall consider
these implications, and also the many problems associated with both defining and
achieving ‘integrated’ rural development, at a later stage.
Defining regional planning presents just as many problems as defining rural
development; however most of these will be postponed until the next chapter. For the
time being, regional planning may simply be defined as a dimension of, or approach to,
development planning which focuses on regions or geographical areas, rather than either
on the national economy or society as a whole or on specific functional sectors or
individual projects (Conyers and Hills, 1984, pp. I I-13). This, of course, begs the
question of what is development planning. In this context, the assumption made by
Waterston (1965, p. 27) that:
“countries were considered to be engaged in development planning if their governments were making a
conscious and continuing attempt to increase their rate of economic and social progress and to alter
those institutional arrangements which were considered to be obstacles to the achievement of this
aim”;
still provides a useful basis for defining the term. The fact that planning thus implies
conscious intervention by governments, and the implications of this for rural
development, are points to which we shall return later in the chapter.
Two other points about regional planning require brief mention here, in order to
avoid confusion in the discussion which follows. First, the term ‘region’ is used here in a
relatively broad sense to refer to any form of sub-national geographical areas; it does
not, however, in the present context include multi-nationa regions. Second, the term
‘regional planning’ is used, at least for the time being, to cover both planning within
Rural Regional Planning: Towards an Operational Theory 7
regions (intra-regional planning) and planning between regions (inter-regional

planning). Both these points are sources of confusion in discussions on the nature and
role of regional planning and they will be discussed in some detail in the next chapter.
1.2. THE CASE FOR A REGIONAL APPROACH TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Although concern with rural development is no longer a new phenomenon in

development studies and governments, international ggencies and academics have now
had many years of experience in trying to bring about planned rural change, confusion
and uncertainty still abound. Robert Chambers’ book, RuralDevelopment: Putting the
Last First, which was published in 1983 and calls for a radically different approach to
meeting the needs of the rural poor, testifies to this. However, since this monograph is
concerned not with rural development as such but with the contribution which regional
planning has to make, we shall not attempt to review the many different approaches to
rural development which have been advocated and tested over the last two decades.
They are, in any case, already well-covered elsewhere in the literature (Chambers, 1974,
1983; Lele, 1975; World Bank, 1975; Lipton, 1977; Long, 1977; Hunteret al., 1979;
Heyer, 1981; Harrison, 1982). We shall merely focus on those aspects of rural
development which relate to regional planning.
Despite the continuing lack of any easy or obvious solutions to most rural
development problems, some tentative lessons have emerged from past experience and
from these it is possible to argue that some sort of regional approach to rural
development planning is required. The main points in support of this argument are
summarized here under four broad headings: the implementation of national plans; the
facilitation of popular participation; the coordination of sectoral activities; and the
reduction of inequalities.
1.2.1. Regional Planning as a means of Implementing National Plans
In the early days of development planning, attention tended to be focused on macro-

economic planning. Gradually, however, during the late 1960s and early 197Os, it was
realized that one of the reasons for the alarming ‘gap’ between what was planned and
what actually happened, characteristic of so many countries, was the failure to
undertake more detailed planning of individual sectors, projects and regions to support
the macro-economic planning undertaken at national level (Faber and Seers, 1972;
Rondinelli, 1978; Griffin, 1981; Conyers and Hills, 1984). Planning at these levels is
necessary in order to ensure that national plans are based on reasonably accurate
information attil;t existing activities and needs and likely future achievements and, in
particular, to assist in the process of translating broad macro-economic policies and
targets into detailed programmes and projects which can actually be implemented.
The importance of sectoral planning and project planning tended to be recognized
earlier than that of regional planning and this was reflected in the attention given in the
1970s to developing planning capacity within sectoral ministries and improving project
planning and management techniques. Gradually, however, the role of regional

planning has also been recognized. As Rondinelli and Cheema (1983, p. 14) point out,
decentralization of planning to regional level:
“can be a means of overcoming the severe limitations of centrally controlled national planning by
delegating greater authority for development planning and management to officials who are working in
the field, closer to the problems. Decentralization to regional or local levels allows officials to
disaggregate and tailor development plans and programmes to the needs of heterogeneous regions and
groups.”
The need to disaggregate national planning applies, of course, to the planning of any
form of development, not only rural development. However, regional planning has a
particularly important role to play in the case of rural development because
programmes and projects are particularly sensitive to local needs and conditions.
1.2.2. Regional Planning as a means of Facilitating Participation
Another dimension of development planning which has received much attention in the
last decade or so is the role of popular participation. Although there is a great deal of
debate about the degree and form of participation which is desirable in any particular
situation, and about the extent to which the ‘benefits’ of such participation outweigh the
‘costs’, the need for some sort of participation has gained widespread acceptance. This is
reflected in the attention given to participation - at least in the rhetoric of development
- by individual governments, international agencies (particularly the International
Labour Office (ILO) and the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development
(UNRISD)) and academics (UN, 1975; O’Regan et al., 1979; Cohen and Uphoff, 1980;
UNRISD, 1980; ILO, 1981-82).
Participation is advocated for two main reasons. On the one hand, it is seen as a
means of improving the quality and relevance of plans and as a means of facilitating
their implementation (including the contribution of local resources of finance or labour)
and their acceptance. On the other hand, it is seen as an end in itself - that is, as an
essential component of a ‘democratic’ society and an essential requirement for the
wellbeing of the individual and the community; it was thus one component of the ‘basic
needs’ approach to development, initiated by the IL0 in the 1970s (Ghai, 1977).
A particularly good case for participation can be made with respect to rural
development planning because, as already indicated, rural development plans are
particularly susceptible to variations in local conditions, needs and attitudes and
popular participation is a way of achieving information about these variations and thus
facilitating the preparation of plans which are relevant and acceptable. The role of
participation in rural development has been usefully assessed by Cohen and Uphoff in
an article summarising the findings of a research project undertaken at Cornell
University. They conclude (1980, p. 228) that:
“‘participation is possible and under many condirions desirable to achieve rhe development goals set by
development agencies andLDC governments. It can be difficult to promote and the results are not
always predictable. The knowledge base to work from is not yet consolidated. But there is enough
experience and theory so that incorporating more elements of participation into development strategies
is feasible and appropriate.”
What then is the role of regional planning in relation to participation? Regional

planning - and in particular intra-regional planning - can facilitate participation
because it is undertaken at a spatial level which is ‘closer to the people’ and so it is easier
to involve them in the planning process. It is also seen as a link in a two-way channel of
communication between the national level and the local, village or community level;
although there is considerable debate about the relative importance of ‘top-down’ and
‘bottom-up’ communication along this channel, there is no doubt that some such
communication must take place (Stohr and Taylor, 1981). The relationship between
regional planning and popular participation will be examined in greater detail later, at
which point it will be seen that the relationship is actually far more complex than we
have so far suggested, since it depends on both the degree and form of participation
required and the type of regional planning with which one is concerned. For the time
being. however, it is sufficient to state that regional planning can, under certain
conditions, facilitate participation in rural development planning.
1.2.3. Regional Planning as a means of Coordinating Sectoral Activities
It was emphasized at the beginning of the chapter that rural development should be
seen as a multi-disciplinary activity, involving many different sectoral activities (not
only agriculture but also natural resource utilization and conservation, rural industry,
health, education, transportation, and so on) and, therefore, many different functional
agencies. This suggests the need for regional planning - or, as in the case of
participation,,more specifically intru-regional planning - because regional planning
involves planning a region or geographical area as a whole, including all sectoral
activities. It thus provides a means of coordinating the planning activities of the many
different functional agencies operating in the region. It is, incidentally, interesting to
note that regional planning is thus seen as a means of achieving both ‘vertical’
coordination between national and local levels and ‘horizontal’ coordination between
sectoral or functional activities within a region. This dual role has led one author to
describe regional planning as a ‘cross function’ (Weitz, 1971, 1979).
The role of regional planning as a means of horizontal, or inter-sectoral, coordination
received encouragement during the 1970s by the emergence of integrated rural
development (IRD), to which brief reference has already been made. The objectives of
IRD are varied and complex, in large part because of the many different interpretations
of the word ‘integrated’, a point which will be discussed in depth later. At this stage, it is
sufficient merely to suggest that IRD arose, at least in part, in response to the realization
that rural development involves many different functional activities which have to be
planned (and implemented) in a coordinated or ‘integrated’ manner. Moreover, despite
the fact that IRD is in many respects a development ‘fad’ which may well ‘go out of
fashion’ before very long, the need for some sort of inter-sectoral coordination, and thus
for some sort of regional planning, is likely to remain an important characteristic of
rural development activity.
1.2.4. The Role of Regional Planning in Reducing Inequalities
“The questions to ask about a country’s development are therefore: What has been happening to
poverty? What has been happening to unemployment? What has been happening to inequality? If
one or two of these central problems have been growing worse, especially if all three have, it would be
strange to call the result ‘development’, even if per capita income doubled.” (Seers, 1969, p. 3;
emphasis added.)
This oft-quoted declaration by Dudley Seers marked the beginning of what have often
been described as the ‘new’ approaches to development which emerged in the 1970s and,
as the quotation suggests, one of the main components of these approaches was a
concern with equality. This concern helps to explain the growing interest in rural
development, which resulted, at least in part, from a realization that rural-urban
differentials were increasing rapidly. Moreover, it also helps to explain both the
emphasis on, and some of the confusion surrounding, IRD, since many IRD
programmes are intended not so much to ‘integrate’ sectoral activities but to ‘integrate’
the poorer sectors of the population into the economy of the area.
Inequalities can be divided into two main types: ‘social’ inequality between
individuals, groups or classes and ‘spatial’ inequality between regions or geographical
areas. In the thinking on development as a whole, social inequalities have tended to
attract more attention than spatial inequalities, especially within neo-Marxist schools of
thought. However, it is spatial inequalities which are of most obvious relevance to
regional planning, since regional planning is concerned with the distribution of
resources and activities between regions and, therefore, with patterns of spatial
inequality and policies designed to reduce such inequality. We shall see in the next
chapter that this aspect of regional planning has tended to dominate the theory and
(although to a somewhat lesser extent) the practice of regional planning in developing
countries for many years and, therefore, to mark its major contribution to development
thinking so far. It should, however, be noted that in this case the main need is for infer-
regional (rather than inrra-regional) planning; the significance of this will also emerge in
the next chapter.
To summarize, therefore, this section of the chapter has suggested that regional
planning has a role to play in rural development as a means of implementing national
plans, facilitating popular participation, coordinating sectoral activities within regions
and tackling the problems of spatial inequality. Before focusing our attention in the rest
of the monograph on the precise role which regional planning can and does play and, in
particular, the implications in terms of the scope, organization and methods of regional
planning, it is necessary to return briefly to a point raised earlier in the chapter about the
role of government intervention in rural development.
1.3. THE ROLE OF THE STATE IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT
The definition of development planning introduced at the beginning of the chapter

implied that planning - including regional planning - involves government
intervention in the process of development. However, we also included a quotation
about rural development which raised (among other things) the question of whether
rural development is ‘a form of state intervention’ or ‘something which is happening
anyway’. Harriss, in his book on rural development which prompted the above
comment, actually resolves the matter by deciding that it covers both and distinguishing
between the two by the use of capital letters; thus he refers to state intervention as ‘Rural
Development’ (RD) and the process of development which ‘happens anyway’ as ‘rural
development’ (Harriss, 1982, p. 16). However, this does not avoid the need to question
what impact state intervention (in the form of RD) can and does actually have on the
process of rural development - a question which is, in fact, tackled in the last part of
Harriss’ book. Consequently, we look briefly at this question here, before focusing our
attention on one particular form of state intervention, namely regional planning.
There is now a considerable volume of literature on the role of the state in developing
countries(Amin, 1976; Bates, 1983; Frank, 1981; Goulbourne, 1979; Jameson and
Wilber, 1981; Harriss, 1982; Markovitz, 1977; Schaffer and Lamb, 1981) and this in turn
draws upon material on the role of the state in Europe which is of considerable
relevance to development studies (Castells, 1978; Laclau, 1975; Miliband, 1969;
Poulantzas, 1973; Scase, 1977). It is not possible to do more than touch upon the subject
here; nor is more detailed coverage necessary, since the aim at this point in the
discussion is merely to make a case for some sort of state intervention in rural
development through planning, and hence to justify what follows. In subsequent
chapters, however, specific aspects of the role of the state will be examined in detail,
especially in Chapter 2, which is concerned with the political and administrative
organization of regional planning.
During the 1960s following the attainment of independence in many African and
Asian countries, there was a tendency for many people, including local political leaders
and academics and sympathetic ‘outsiders’, to assume that a high degree of state
inte~ention was both necessary and desirable for development purposes. This view of
the state, which Saul (1979) describes as ‘benign’, rested on the assumption that the new
political leaders (who were often the same people who had led the struggle for
independence) had only, the interests of the nation and the majority of its population at
heart. State intervention was thus seen not only as a means of mobilizing resources and
bringing about rapidly needed social and economic changes, but also as an antidote to
the interrelated ‘evils’ of colonialism and capitalism and as an insurance against the
growing forces of neo-colonialism (Alavi, 1972). This resulted in many countries,
especially those which made special efforts to follow a ‘socialist path’, in state ownership
of many resources, economic activities and service institutions, in the use of the Soviet
Union, China and other socialist countries as models of development and providers of
financial and technical assistance, and - particularly important in terms of the focus of
this monograph - the widespread adoption of development planning as a means of
bringing about the required socioeconomic changes.
However, during the 1970s views about the degree and form of state intervention
gradually changed, becoming both more complex and more varied. These changes
occurred in large part as a response to the experience with state intervention in
developing countries in the 1960s and early 197Os, and also to the experience in the
Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and other socialist countries. These experiences revealed
the many problems and pitfalls associated with state intervention, especially in those
countries which retained many of the elements of a capitalist economic structure and
were inextricably linked into the world economic system, as was the case with the
majority of developing countries. The problems encountered included those of
management, productivity and incentive in state enterprises (including productive
enterprises and service institutions) (Ghai, 1976; Zimbalist, 1981), those of mobilizing
(or, to use Hyden’s terminology, ‘capturing’) the peasantry and achieving effective
popular participation in productive activities and in decision-making (Hyden, 1980;
Schaffer and Lamb, 198 1, chapter 5), and the many shortcomings of national
development planning - including the gap between planned and actual achievements
(Faber and Seers, 1972). Perhaps most significant of all, however, at least in terms of the
attention it has received in the literature, was the realization that the state is not
necessarily benign; in other words, it does not always - or in many cases, often or ever
- have the interests of the majority of the population at heart. This has prompted a
debate on the political and economic structure of the post-colonial state (Goulbourne,
1979), in which one of the main points to emerge has been its complexity, in terms of the
many different internal and external forces which influence state policy (Alavi, 1972).
This in turn has necessitated the revision of classical theories - Marxist and non-
Marxist - of the state.
In the case of rural development, evidence of the deficiencies of state intervention are
manifest. Perhaps the most obvious is the failure in most countries, despite the political
rhetoric in support of rural development, to bring about a significant reallocation of
government resources from the urban to the rural sector - the problem of ‘urban bias’
(Lipton, 1977). Where resources have been allocated to rural development, problems of
planning and implementing development programmes include the many defects of the
various parastatal bodies responsible for activities such as marketing, the supply of
agricultural inputs and the promotion of rural industry, the difficulties of achieving
effective participation among the rural population (already mentioned on several
occasions) and the tendency for much (and in some cases all) of the benefit from rural
development programmes to be gained by either an existing rural elite or members of a
new state bourgeoisie (Harriss, 1982).
If this is the reality of past experience, what are the future prospects for state
intervention in general, and rural development planning in particular? Opinions differ.
For some people this experience has been used to justify a return to policies based on
capitalism and free enterprise. This approach has characterized the attitudes of
international agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
during the early 1980s (World Bank, 1981; 1983, chapters 5,8), influenced in large part
by the related monetarist policies of the United States, the United Kingdom and other
‘western’ nations. Others, especially those concerned with rural development, have also
rejected state intervention, but have instead advocated an approach which relies on the
initiative of local people, assisted by local community organizations and, in some cases,
by voluntary agencies (Williams, 1982).
However, the rejection of any significant degree of state intervention through either of
the above approaches has serious limitations. On the one hand, the adoption of a laissez
faire, monetarist approach offers little hope for the majority of the rural population in
most countries. Fields, in a study of the relationship between economic growth and
equality in six countries, concludes that:
“in the absence of a firm commitment to developing for the poor and the courage to act on that
commitment, it seems only natural that economic systems will perpetuate the flow of resources to the
haves with at best some trickle-down to the have-nots. More may trickle down to the poor in some
cases than in others. Commitment to developing to help the poor does not guarantee progress, but it
helps a great deal.” (Fields, 1980, p. 242).
On the other hand, the alternative approach, in which the main initiative is left to the
people themselves, with little or no state intervention, may be a desirable ideal but
presents many practical problems, especially in societies which are highly stratified.
Uphoff and Esman, in an earlier report of the study of participation in rural
development conducted by Cornell University (to which reference has already been
made), suggest that:
“On the whole, rural people are more capable and responsive than the paternalistic model of social
change suggests, but less able to change their lives autonomously than the populist model
presumes What should be developed is an institutionalized system which is neitherjust top-down
nor bottom-up nor exclusively governmental.” (Uphoff and Esman, 1974, p. xiii.)
This suggests that state intervention does still have a role to play in rural
development. Moreover, irrespective of the views of academics, political idealists - and
‘the people’ themselves, it is more or less inevitable that it will continue to have a role,
for better or for worse, in the foreseeable future, because governments will continue to
exist and to wish to have some influence over the processes of social and economic
change. Hence there is a need, which most students and practitioners of rural
development have already recognized, to look more critically at the nature of state
intervention, including the degree of intervention desirable in any particular situation,
the form which it should take and the way in which it can be coordinated with the
activities of community groups and non-government organizations. This monograph is
intended to help to meet such a need by examining the particular contribution which
regional planning can make to the process of rural development.
1.4. SUMMARY
The purpose of this chapter has been to explain why a regional approach to rural
development planning is required and it has considered the potential and limitations of
state intervention in generai, and planning in particular, as a means of facilitating rural
development. The next chapters review past approaches to regional planning and to
consider what approach is most likely to meet the needs of rural development identified
in this chapter.
CHAPTER 2
Regional Planning: An Overview
2.1. INTRODUCTION
The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of past approaches to regional

planning in developing countries and to see what contribution they have actually made
to rural development. This will provide a basis from which to go on in the next chapter
to suggest some ways in which regional planning might be able to make a more
significant contribution in the future.
The main problem which arises in undertaking such a review is the nebulous nature of
‘regional planning’ and the many different forms which it may. take, as a result of which
it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make any broad generalizations about the
characteristics of regional planning and, therefore, its contribution to rural
development. This problem can be attributed to a large extent to the terminological
confusion which surrounds both the terms ‘region’ and ‘planning’. Although the term
‘region’ is used here, as already stated in Chapter 1, to refer to any sub-national
geographical area, this is a relatively broad definition which is not universally
acceptable. In many countries where regional planning is practised, and in much of the
theoretical literature, the word is used in a variety of different, and always more limited,
senses. The term ‘planning’ is similarly vague and is thus also used in several different
ways. Confusion arises in particular because there are different disciplinary approaches
to planning, or different planning ‘professions’, and because it is not possible to make a
clear distinction between ‘planning’ and ‘administration’.
The only effective way of evaluating the role of regional planning, therefore, is to
identify its various dimensions more clearly and examine the extent to which each of
these contributes to rural development. Such an analysis will thus constitute the main
part of this chapter. First of all, however, it is necessary to look briefly at the historical
origins of regional planning as an activity and as a field of academic interest. This will
help not only to convey some idea of the nature and scope of regional planning but also
to explain the terminological confusion which surrounds it.
2.2. HISTORICAL ORIGINS AND DIMENSIONS
Much of the confusion related to the nature and scope of regional planning is related
to the fact that it is not a cohesive discipline or profession, with a well defined body of
14
theoretical knowledge and a coherent history which can easily be traced. One reflection
of this is that, although there is a vast literature on topics related in one way or another
to regional planning, there are very few books which attempt to discuss - or even to
define - the field as a whole. The few texts which do attempt such an ambitious task
usually begin (as I have here) by acknowledging the lack of a cohesive theoretical
framework (for example, Hilhorst, 1971; Glasson, 1978) and they then often focus their
attention, quite justifiably, on selected aspects or dimensions of regional planning.
Others claim to cover the whole field but, in fact, only tackle one part of it. Friedmann
and Weaver (1979), for example, sub-title their book ‘The Evolution of Regional
Planning’ and begin by claiming (p. 1) that ‘regional planning has come of age’, the
recent plethora of regional planning activities ‘mark the arrival of a new professional
field’ and ‘there is a growing consensus about theory and doctrine’. Closer examination
of their book, however, reveals not only the existence of considerable diversity and
incoherence within the body of knowledge which they describe under the heading of
‘regional planning’, but also that, as they go on (p. 2) to point out, their attention is
focused on regional development rather than on regionalplanning - a subtle but
important distinction to which we shall return later.
These problems are also reflected in regional planning training. One piece of evidence
which Friedmann and Weaver use to support their claim that ‘regional planning has
come of age’ is the many ‘teaching and research institutes’ which have been established.
However, if one compares the curricula of the various teaching institutions, there is
much diversity. Some focus on regional development, others onplanning; some cater
primarily for economists, others for geographers or architects; some are oriented
towards urban areas, others towards rural areas; and very few actually ask the question
‘what is regional planning?’ The lack of a cohesive theory of regional planning can be
attributed largely to the fact that regional planning has actually emerged from several
different disciplines or professions, each of which has - for different reasons -
recqgnised the need for some sort of regional planning activity. The situation is further
complicated because some of these ‘parent’ disciplines have emerged predominantly in
developed countries and others in developing countries, so there is also the problem of
reconciling differences in regional planning between developed and developing areas.
As a result of this historical process, several different approaches to regional planning
can be identified. Because they are all concerned with regional planning in some sense or
other, they have some common characteristics and there is some overlap between them;
thus they are all concerned with the regional or spatial dimensions of planning rather
than, say, with national sectoral or project level planning. However, since they were
introduced for different purposes and emerged from different disciplines, there are also
marked differences between them. Moreover, because they have developed to a large
extent independently of each other, there has been a tendency to exaggerate the
differences and ignore the similarities, and also in some cases to use different ‘languages’
to describe similar or related phenomena. Consequently, any attempt to analyse or
compare different types of regional planning becomes unnecessarily complex and
confusing.
In order to illustrate the impact of this historical process, some of the more easily
identifiable approaches to regional planning will be described in this section. Since this
will, in effect, amount to a brief description of the nature and scope of regional planning
activity, it will also help the reader to relate the discussion which follows to his or her
own particular interests or experiences. Seven different approaches have been identified
and they have been grouped into two broad categories: firstly, four approaches which,
although they differ greatly, would all be conventionally recognised as ‘regional
planning’; and secondly, three less conventional approaches which have many features
generally regarded as characteristic of ‘regional planning’ but which (for reasons which
will become apparent) are often not actually known by this label. It should be
emphasised that the seven approaches distinguished here are abstractions of reality
rather than perfect representations of actual planning practice; in most countries the
situation is likely to be more complex than the account which follows might suggest and
there are also significant variations from one country to another.
2.2.1. ConventionalApproaches to RegionalPlanning
‘Conventional’ approaches, as explained above, are those which are generally

regarded, or labelled, as ‘regional planning’.
Regional Economic Planning

In most countries and to most people, the term ‘regional planning’ implies, first and
foremost, a concern with the spatial aspects or dimensions of national development
plans. This generally involves examining the spatial patterns of development between
regions and either predicting the impact of existing policies and programmes on these
patterns or formulating ‘corrective’ policies or programmes designed to change them,
normally with the aim of reducing inequalities between regions. The corrective policies
and programmes may involve either changes in the distribution of resources (especially
public and private investment) between regions or special efforts to develop previously
underutilized resources within a particular region - or some combination of the two.
For example, in both developed and developing countries concern about spatial
inequalities in industrial and urban development has been tackled by nationwide
policies to redistribute industry (for example, through incentives to private investment
and the location of public investment in the form of state-owned industries and urban
infrastructure) and special programmes to encourage development in particular regions,
often through the designation of ‘growth poles’ or ‘growth centres’ (Boudeville, 1966;
Friedmann and Weaver, 1979; Gilbert, 1976; Hansen, 1972; Lo and Salih, 1978; Morris,
1981).
In less developed countries this approach to regional planning has emerged from
national development planning, in response to the need to consider locational aspects or
implications of development plans. National development planning is itself an offshoot
of economics and, although the need for other disciplines to be involved is now widely
acknowledged (Conyers and Hills, 1984, chapter 4), it still tends to be dominated by
economists and by economic concepts, theories and techniques. This economic bias is
reflected in the particular form of regional planning which has emerged from it, hence
the use of the label ‘regional economic planning’ here. Much of its theoretical and
methodological base has been drawn from regional economics and its main proponents
are regional economists and economic geographers. Moreover, most of this base was
originally developed in the industrialized countries of Western Europe and North
America, where regional economic planning has tended to be the most obvious, and
sometimes the only, formal demonstration of national planning (Hall, 1974; Friedmann
and Weaver, 1979).
Arthur Morris, in a review of regional development planning in Latin America,
maintains (198 1, p. 184) that:
“Most regional planning theory has been evolved in Western industrialized countries. It has been
developed as a by-product of economics, emerging at a late stage.”
This comment is significant in two respects. Firstly, Morris is obviously using the terms
‘regional planning’ and ‘regional economic planning’ synonymously, thus emphasizing
the dominant role which the latter has played in conventional regional planning, not
only in Latin America but in most parts of the developing world. Secondly, the
quotation summarises some of the most important characteristics of conventional
regional economic planning, which we have already noted. It should, however, be
mentioned that some significant changes in thinking about regional economic planning
have begun to occur in the last few years within the context of changes in the whole field
of development studies. We shall examine these changes later and we shall consider the
relevance of both conventional and recent approaches to regional economic planning
for rural development.
Regional Disaggregation of National Plans

This approach to regional planning is closely related to regional economic planning
since it has also emerged from national development planning and it has tended to be
practised by economists. However, it has emerged as a response not so much to
concerns about spatial patterns and inequalities but to the need to disaggregate national
plans in order to facilitate their implementation (Rondinelli, 1978, 1983; Rondinelli and
Mandell, 1981; Rondinelli and Cheema, 1983; Conyers and Hills, 1984). In most
developing countries this has resulted in attempts to break down a national plan into
more detailed regional plans or, in some cases, to go one step further and use regional
plans as the basis for the formulation of the national plan. The former approach is
usually described as ‘top-down’ planning and the latter as ‘bottom-up’ planning. In
practice, most countries adopt a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches,
but the relative importance attached to each varies considerably from one country to
another.
This is an aspect of regional planning where practice has tended to move ahead of
theory, in the sense that, although the need for such disaggregation is widely recognized
in planning practice, it has received much less attention in the literature than regional
economic planning. Moreover, and perhaps partly because of the lack of a theoretical
base, actual achievements have often been disappointing. Two related factors help to
explain its neglect. One is the fact that few lessons can be drawn from the experiences of
western industrialized nations, since they do not normally practise systematic national
development planning; the main models for this type of planning have been the
centrally-planned nations of the Soviet bloc and China. The other factor is that the
success of this approach to regional planning is dependent more on the process and
machinery of planning than on the content of economic policies, while the economists
who dominated the development planning field have tended to be more experienced and
interested in the latter. We shall return to this last point later.
Regional Land-Use Planning

The term ‘land-use planning’ is used here to refer to that type of planning which is
concerned primarily with the detailed design or layout of land use. It is often known by
a variety of other names, including ‘physical planning’, ‘urban and regional planning’
and ‘town and country planning’. The origins of this form of planning can be traced to
western industrialized countries and its iniroduction to the Third World can be
attributed largely to colonial governments. It began as an adjunct of architecture but
gradually incorporated elements of various social sciences, especially geography, and
eventually emerged as a discipline -and a profession - in its own right (Hall, 1974).
As its scope broadened, it became increasingly involved in activities which could be
described as ‘regional planning’. Initially this arose through the realization that urban
areas, where its attention was (and in many less developed countries still is) focused,
cannot be planned in isolation from the surrounding region; hence the concepts of the
‘city-region’ (Dickinson, 1964) and ‘urban and regional planning’ emerged and
gradually land-use planning also extended into rural regions.
Because of its different origins, this approach to regional planning tends to have a
rather different orientation to regional economic planning, focusing on the physical or
spatial aspects of planning and employing spatial rather than economic techniques of
analysis. There is, however, considerable overlap between the two and in many
developed countries, such as the U.K. and the U.S.A., regional economic planning is
often practised as an extension of land use planning, rather than as an extension of
national development planning, because the latter does not exist as such. In developing
countries the situation is more complex because national development planning is a
much more important activity. In many countries, especially former British territories,
land-use planning is regarded as a separate and (in terms of its influence and the
resources allocated to it) less important activity, located in a separate ministry and
staffed not by economists but by special land-use planners, often trained overseas in
Europe or North America (Conyers and Hills, 1984). Because of limited resources,
land-use planners frequently confine themselves to detailed physical design work,
primarily in urban areas; but if they do extend into broader regional planning activities,
there is often some overlap, and sometimes duplication, between their work and that of
regional economic planners working for the national development planning agency.
Natural Resource Planning

The fourth type of planning which has made a significant contribution to
conventional regional planning may be described as natural resource planning. A
regional approach to natural resource planning is frequently adopted for two reasons.
Firstly, the distribution of natural resources is such that one can generally identify
‘natural resource regions’, each of which can and (from a natural resource planner’s
perspective) should be planned as a whole. Secondly, there are usually a number of

different, and often conflicting, ways in which natural resources can be utilized and this
requires a multipurpose or ‘integrated’ approach to planning within natural resource
regions.
River basin planning was the earliest example of this approach to regional planning
and, in fact, some of the earliest planning exercises to be formally designated as
‘regional planning’ were associated with river basin planning (Friedmann and Weaver,
1979). The best known example is the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in the U.S.A.,
which was established in the 1930s to plan and manage the development of the
Tennessee river valley (Pritchett, 1943; Moore, 1967). The practice of river basin
planning spread from the TVA to other parts of the U.S.A. and to other countries,
including many developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America (UN, 1970,
1975; Saha and Barrow, 1981; Biswas et al., 1983).
Although river basin planning remains the most obvious form of natural resource
regional planning, similar approaches are also used to plan other types of natural
resource region. Examples include semi-arid regions, as in the Sahel zone of Africa
(Berry, 1983; Heathcote, 1983), mountainous regions, as in Lesotho (Geer and Wallis,
1982) and regions characterized by major mineral exploitation, such as the Ok Tedi
copper mining area in Papua, New Guinea (Jackson, 1982). In all cases, the overriding
concern is with the use of natural resources and this is reflected in both the content of
the plans and the methods of planning.
2.2.2. Unconventional Approaches to Regional Planning
This section describes three approaches which, because of terminological confusion

rather than inherent characteristics, are less likely to be labelled ‘regional planning’ and
so are referred to here as ‘unconventional’ approaches. The characteristics which justify
their consideration as approaches to ‘regional planning’ will become apparent in the
descriptions which follow.
Integrated Rural Development Planning

Several references to integrated rural development (IRD) have already been made in
Chapter‘l. IRD emerged in response to the need for a multidisciplinary (or ‘integrated’)
approach to rural development problems and to concern with the poorest sectors of the
rural population (FAO, 1978; ODI, 1979; Livingstone, 1979). In many countries these
concerns resulted in the identification of selected regions with particular rural
development problems or potential, within which technical and financial resources
(almost always provided, at least in part, by overseas aid) could be concentrated. This in
turn led to the need for development plans for these regions - especially since many aid
agencies, such as the World Bank, refused to fund an IRD project without such a plan
- and, therefore, eventually to a concern with the methodology of such planning
(Belshaw and Douglass, 1981).
This approach to regional planning demonstrates very clearly the confusion which
exists about what is, and what is not, called ‘regional planning’. IRD planning has
emerged from rural development theory (vvhich is itself an uneasy amalgam of many
different disciplinary interests) and is more often regarded as a form of rural
development administration, rather than a form of regional planning. In practice,
however, not only does it obviously have a ‘regional’ focus and involve some sort of
‘planning’ (rather than just routine administration), but also it is closely related to other,
more conventional approaches to regional planning. Thus, the selection of regions for
IRD projects is often associated with the type of regional economic planning exercise
described earlier, in which an analysis of regional inequalities results in the selection of a
few regions for particular planning attention. Furthermore, IRD planning often uses
techniques borrowed from the more conventional types of regional planning, especially
land use planning and natural resource planning, and IRD project areas sometimes
coincide with natural resource regions. In fact, the mountainous region of Tsaba-Tseka
in Lesotho, which was earlier used as an example of natural resource planning, was
actually also the site of an IRD project, while in Sri Lanka an integrated planning
project in the Mahaweli River valley encouraged the development of IRD planning on a
district basis. The relationship between natural resource planning and IRD planning can
be explained, at least in part, by the fact that both are concerned with the coordination
of interrelated activities and the reconciliation of alternative, and often conflicting, uses
of resources - including not only natural resources but also other resources, such as
finance and technical expertise.
Regional Administrative Planning

IRD planning illustrates one way in which the need for regional planning can emerge
from a more general concern with the administration of development at regional level,
in this case in selected regions which are the focus of special development efforts. A
similar process can also be seen in relation to the administration of development
programmes in ‘ordinary’ regions, which have not been selected for any special effort.
The need for regional planning has emerged here as a result of general dissatisfaction
with the administration of development at regional level, including the lack of
coordination between the activities of different sectoral agencies, the lack of effective
popular participation and the need for some sort of systematic forward planning, rather
than simply routine day-to-day administration (Bowden, 1979; Esman, 1981). The main
differences between this approach to regional planning and IRD planning are, firstly,
the fact that it is not confined to selected regions and, secondly, the much more limited
financial and technical resources available for preparing and implementing plans.
This approach to regional planning tends to be regarded as ‘administration’ rather
than ‘planning’, and it has in fact emerged as an extension of public administration or
development administration, rather than as a branch of planning. This raises the
question, already touched upon on several occasions, of what is the difference between
‘administration’ and ‘planning’. Although it is not possible to draw a clear distinction
between the two, it is possible (without at this stage embarking upon a theoretical
discussion about the nature of planning) to identify some characteristics of planning
which help to distinguish it from routine administration. In essence, planning involves
some systematic attempt to look into the future and assess alternative ways of achieving
particular objectives, rather than merely following past practices and responding to
changing needs or conditions on an ad hoc basis. Regional administrative planning thus

warrants the name ‘planning’ because it is an attempt to develop some sort of systematic
planning at regional level. The methods of planning used are often very rudimentary
and the efforts are by no means always successful, but this does not mean that it should
not be regarded as an attempt at ‘planning’. Moreover, such efforts are sometimes
undertaken in conjunction with conventional planning exercises, notably the
disaggregation of national development plans, since it is now widely recognized that
regional plans will never become an integral part of national plans unless the regions
have the capacity to prepare and implement plans (Rondinelli and Cheema, 1983).
Kenya provides a good example of a country which has put considerable effort into
developing the capacity to plan at ‘regional’ (in this case, district) level as part of the
disaggregation of national planning (Leonard, 1973; Oyugi, 198 1; Rondinelli, 1983).
Concern with regional administrative planning has emerged in the developing world
itself, as part of the process of adapting colonial administrative systems to meet the
needs of ‘development’. However, it is interesting to note that in some industrialized
countries, particularly the U.K., a somewhat similar approach to planning (usually
known as ‘corporate planning’) has been practised at local government level (Eddison,
1975; Greenwood and Stewart, 1974; Greenwood et al., 1980; Hinings et al., 1980). In
the U.K. this sort of planning is seen as distinct from (although closely related to)
economic planning and land-use planning. The implications of this for regional
planning in developing countries will be considered later.
Community Planning
Community planning is perhaps the most unconventional approach to regional
planning discussed here. The term is used to refer to planning at a very local level,
usually in association with some sort of community development activity. ‘Community
development’ is itself a nebulous concept which has many cultural and value-laden
overtones (Manghezi, 1976; Dore, 1981). For the present purpose, however, it is
sufficient to describe it as an attempt to mobilize development at the local level, within
an area where there is some sense of common identity or purpose (hence the word
‘community’) and where the local people are the main mobilizing forces behind the
development activity. The need for planning in association with community
development activities arises for several reasons: in order to evaluate aitemative ways of
achieving community objectives and using local resources; in order to plan the details of
specific development projects or programmes within the community; and in order to
relate (as far as it is necessary) community level activities with regional and national
level plans.
There are two reasons why community planning is a particularly unconventional sort
of regional planning. One is the fact that the area occupied by a community is normally
much smaller than most conventional regions and only the very broad definition of a
region adopted here permits its inclusion. The other reason is that the type of planning
introduced at this level is likely to be even more rudimentary than regional
administrative planning and thus once again we are faced with the question of what is -
and what is not - ‘planning’. However, we shall see later that it has a potentially
important role to play in rural regional planning, particularly as a means of increasing
popular participation in planning. Furthermore, this is not the first time that
community level planning has been seen as a dimension, or extension, of regional
planning. In 197 1 Kuklinski, in a review of the educational needs for different types of
regional planners, included community development as one of the inputs into the type
of regional planning which he called ‘interlocal’ planning (Kuklinski, 1971, p. 34). And
once again it is also instructive to look at experience in developed countries, such as the
U.K., where community level planning(often known as ‘area planning’ or ‘local
planning’) has recently attracted considerable attention within the urban and regional
(or land use) planning profession (Hambleton, 1978; Kraushaar, 1982; Donnison, 1983;
TCPA, 1983).
2.3. REGIONAL PLANNING AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
The brief overview of different approaches to regional planning in the previous

section demonstrated, on the one hand, the wide range of activities included under the
umbrella of ‘regional planning’ and their varied origins and objectives and, on the other
hand, the existence of considerable overlap between at least some of the approaches.
This confirms the need to analyse the various approaches more systematically in order
to evaluate their contribution to rural development.
In order to undertake such an analysis, some sort of criteria for classifying different
approaches to regional planning are required. The following criteria have been selected
for this purpose:
1. from which planning profession the approach has emerged;

2. whether the main focus of attention is on regional devrlopmrnt or regional planning;
3. the sort of development policies adopted in the plans:
4. whether the concern is with inrra-regional or inrer-regional planning;
5. the type of region;
6. whether planning covers all regions in a country or only a selected few; and
7. whether planning is undertakenjou regions orh,v regions.
This section examines each of these criteria in turn. In each case, a brief explanation
of the criterion is followed by, firstly, an assessment of its significance in terms of rural
development planning and, secondly, a classification of the various approaches to
regional planning described in the previous section on the basis of this particular
criterion. In assessing the significance for rural development planning, reference is made
to the four ways in which regional planning may contribute to rural development,
identified in Chapter 1. We may regard these as the objectives of rural regional
planning. They are:
1. to improve the implementation of national plans;

2. to encourage popular participation;
3. to facilitate horizontal coordination; and
4. to tackle problems of spatial inequality.
Tables 1 and 2 should be studied in conjunction with the discussion which follows.
Table 1 indicates the relationship between the four objectives of rural regional planning
and the criteria used to classify different types of regional planning. In other words, it
TABLE 1. Analysis of the requirements of rural regional planning
Objectives of Type of Regional Type of Organization of the planning process

rural regional planning development development
planning profession or regional policies Intra Type of region Regional For regions
planning? or coverage or by
inter? Admin. or Size regions?
planning?
1. Implementation All Both Rural Both Admin. Hierarchy Ali Both

of national plans
2. Popular Socioeconomic Both Rural; Intra Admin. Hierarchy All By regions
participation and management participatory but espec.
small
3. Horizontal All Both Rural; Intra Admin. (but Fairly All By regions
coordination integrated see text) small
4. Spatial Socioeconomic Both Rural; Inter Planning Varies but Selective For regions
equality and land use egalitarian often small
TABLE 2. Analysis of the characteristics of regional planning
Approach to Type of Regional Type of Organization of the planning process

rural regional planning development development
planning profession or regional policies Intra Type of region Region For regions
planning? or coverage or by
inter? Admin. or Sire regions’!
planning‘?
A. Conventional
1. Regional Socioeconomic Development Mainly urban Mainly Mainly Mainly Selective For reglow
economic and some Relevance inter planning large
planning land-use limited
2. Disaggregation Socioeconomic Both Depends on Both Admin. Hierarchy All Both but
of national and management national (but esp. mainly for
plans policies large) regions
3. Land-use Mainly Both Mainly urban Intra Mainly Mainly Selective Both
planning land-use Spatial only planning small
4. Natural Socioeconomic Mainly Mainly rural Intra Planning Mainly Selective Both but
resource and land-use development Not ‘human’ large mainly for
planning oriented regions
B. Unconventional
5. IRD Mainly Mainly Rural lntra Both Fairly Selective Both but
planning socioeconomic development Relevant small mainly for
regions
6. Regional Management Planmng Rural Intra Fairly All By regions
admin. No specific small
planning policies
7. Community All Both Rural Intra Mainlv Ver) Mainly By region\
planning Relevant planning small selective
suggests which characteristics of regional planning are most likely to contribute to each
of the objectives of rural regional planning Table 2 summarises the main characteristics
of each of the approaches to regional planning described in the previous section, using
the same criteria for classification as in Table 1.
The reader will find that there is very little attempt in this section to document the
actual impact of particular characteristics or forms of regional planning on rural
development. There are two reasons for this. One is the problem of space; it is not
possible in one chapter to review the performance of the many different approaches to
regional planning which have been identified. More important, however, is the fact that
the arguments in this section are based on logical deduction rather than on empirical
evidence. In other words, conclusions about the relevance (or irrelevance) of particular
approaches to regional planning are based on an analysis of their characteristics, rather
than on evidence of their actual performance. Documentary evidence in support of the
main conclusions, based on actual performance, will be presented in the next chapter.
2.3.1. Planning Profession
The description of different approaches to regional planning in the previous section

has already suggested that there are several different disciplinary or professiona
approaches to planning, each of which has its own regional dimension. These various
planning *professions’ differ in terms of their objectives and methodologies and thus the
types of planners they employ, and these differences are reflected in the different
approaches to regional planning which have emerged from them. In the context of
regional planning, it is useful to distinguish three main professional types, which may be
referred to as socioeconomic planning, land-use planning and management planning.
Sociueconomicplannin~ is seen as a means of achieving socioeconomic development
and it therefore involves the formulation of socioeconomic policies and their translation
into specific programtries and projects. The terms ‘economic planning’ and
‘development planning’ are also used to describe this sort of planning. Most of the work
undertaken by national planning agencies in developing countries falls within this
category.
In la~d-~sep~a~~i~g the main objective is the rational use of land and planning thus
involves making decisions about the way in which land should be used, often at a very
detailed level, and ensuring that it is used in this way. The role of land-use planning in
developing countries and its application at regional level were discussed briefly in the
previous section. As pointed out then, it may also be known as ‘physical planning’,
‘urban and regional planning’ or ‘town and country planning’.
~a~a~e~e~rp~an~j~g is concerned with the management of resources within an
organization, with the aim of making the most effective or efficient use of the resources
available. Its origins lie in private enterprise but it is also practised in government
organizations, sometimes under the name of ‘organization and methods’ or ‘corporate
planning’.
It should be emphasized that these three types of planning are interretated and many
development problems can - and should - be tackled from all three perspectives. The
distinctions between them are, therefore, to some extent artificial and they have been
exaggerated by the barriers which inevitably exist between different professions. The
relationship between socioeconomic (or development) planning and land-use planning
in most Third World countries, to which brief reference has already been made, is the
most obvious example of this situation. The implications of both the similarities and the
differences between the three professional types in the context of regional planning, and
especially rural regional planning, will become clear as the discussion progresses.
It is fairly obvious that all three types of planning have a role to play in rural
development, although some are more important than others in achieving particular
objectives (Table 1). Most rural development problems can only be tackled by a
combination of socioeconomic policies and programmes, appropriate use of land and
planned management of the organizations involved. This suggests the need for a
comprehensive approach to rural regional planning, embracing all three professional
types. How does this compare with reality? Table 2 suggests that, because of the way in
which the various approaches to regional planning have emerged, most of them focus on
only one, or at best two, types of planning. Thus regional economic planning and the
regional disaggregation of national plans have both developed as extensions of national
development planning and so are primarily concerned with socioeconomic planning,
although the former incorporates some elements of land-use planning and the latter
some elements of management planning. The main focus of land-use planning is
obvious by its name, while regional administrative planning tends, because of its origins
in public administration, to focus on management planning. Natural resource planning
and IRD planning often have a broader scope because they are not rooted in any one
planning ‘profession’; however, both tend to neglect the management side of planning
and IRD planning usually focuses on the formulation of socioeconomic policies and
programmes. The only approach to regional planning which gives equal attention to all
three types of planning is community planning; at this level an integrated approach is
virtually inevitable, partly because problems have to be tackled as a whole but also
because ‘professional’ planners are seldom represented at this level and so the artificial
divisions created by professionalism do not arise.
In conclusion, therefore, the fact that the various approaches to regional planning
have emerged from different disciplines and professions results in an uncoordinated
approach to rural regional planning, except at the very local or community level.
Responsibility for the socioeconomic, land-use and management aspects of planning
tends to be divided between different professional groups or agencies and coordination
between them is inadequate. Furthermore, there is also a tendency for socioeconomic
planning to receive the most attention, in line with its dominant role at the national
level, while land-use planning and, in particular, management planning tend to be
neglected.
2.3.2. Regional Development or Regional Planning
When discussing any type of planning, it is useful to recognize the difference between
discussions about the content of plans and discussions about the process of planning.
This distinction can best be understood m the context of the types of knowledge which a
planner needs to acquire. On the one hand, he (or she) needs to know something about
the processes of development or change relevant to his particular type of planning, since
they will influence the content of the plans which are prepared. And on the other hand,
he (or she) also requires knowledge about methods of preparing (and implementing)
plans, the role and limitations of planning as a means of bringing about change, and his
own role as a professional planner. Faludi (1973b) refers to these two bodies of
knowledge as theories in planning and theories ofplanning, or alternatively s~~s~~~~jve
theories and~r~~e~u~a~ theories.
Both types of knowledge - substantive and procedural theories - are obviously
important because the extent to which planning achieves its overall objectives depends
on both the content of the plans (substantive theory) and the way in which they are
prepared and implemented (procedural theory). However, the extent to which
individual objectives of planning are achieved may depend more on one than on the
other. Moreover, some approaches to planning tend to place much more emphasis on
one than the other. Consequently, the distinction between the two is useful because it
helps not only to differentiate between different approaches to planning but also to
evaluate the impact of planning and, in particular, to understand why planning is or is
not achieving its objectives. Hence it is important in our attempt to evaluate the impact
of different approaches to regional planning.
In the context of regional planning, the distinction between substantive and
procedural theory is a distinction between knowledge about the processes of regional
devefopment and knowledge about the processes and procedures of regionalpianning. It
is fairly obvious that, in order to achieve the objectives of rural regional planning, both
types of knowledge are important (Table 1). In other words, it is necessary to
understand, on the one hand, the processes of development in rural regions and, on the
other hand, the role which planning can play in bringing about such development and
its organization and methodology. However, a more detailed examination of each
objective reveals that the role of each type of knowledge, and the interrelationships
between them, are far more complex than this might suggest. Because of this
complexity, it is not possible to embark upon a full examination of each objective here.
However, we shall look briefly at each one, in order to demonstrate the need to consider
both the substantive and the procedural dimensions of rural regional planning theory,
and also their interrelationships.
The role of regional planning in relation to the first objective, the implementation of
national plans, is to disaggregate planning to the regional level. Such disaggregation is
only possible if national plans reflect regional needs and concerns and if the processes of
planning and implementation facilitate communication between national and regional
levels. Furthermore, the two are related; for example, communication between regional
and national levels in the preparation of plans will hopefully make national plans more
relevant to regional needs and thus facilitate their disaggregation for implementation
purposes.
In the case of participation, analysis is complicated by the many different degrees and
forms ofpa~icipation. If the main concern is with pa~i~ipation in the process of
decision-making (as is often the assumption when regional planning is advocated as a
means of achieving popular participation), the process of planning is likely to be more

important than the content of plans. However, the content of plans affects participation
in other ways; for example, it may determine the number of people who benefit from a
particular development programme or the extent to which development objectives are
achieved through participatory means (such as cooperatives or self-help projects).
The objective of horizontal coordination has obvious implications for both the
content of plans and the process of planning. On the one hand, plans must adopt a
coordinated or ‘integrated’ approach to development and, on the other hand, there is a
need to improve coordination between the various agencies involved in the processes of
preparing and implementing plans. Moreover, the degree of coordination in the
planning process is likely to affect the degree of coordination in the plan itself, and this
in turn is likely to affect coordination in its implementation.
Finally, in the case of the fourth objective, the reduction of spatial inequalities, the
content of plans is obviously important because it determines the extent to which
attempts are made to reduce such inequalities by, for example, the allocation of
resources between regions. However, the process of planning is also important because
it determines the extent to which the planners are able - and willing - to make a
serious attempt to reduce inequalities. In many countries, for example, the structure of
political and economic power is such that any attempt to redirect resources towards
poorer groups or regions is sabotaged by those in whose hands the existing political and
economic power lies.
The need to consider both the process of regional development which is reflected in
the content of plans and the actual process of regional planning is significant because,
when one examines the relative importance attached to each in the various approaches
to regional planning, one finds that in most approaches - and especially the more
conventional ones - the former has tended to receive considerably more attention than
the latter (Table 2). This bias is reflected in the literature on regional planning and in the
content of many regional planning courses, as well as in actual planning practice. There
are, however, some approaches where this is not the case. These are land-use planning
and community planning, both of which divide their attention fairly equally between
regional development and regional planning (in the former case by conscious choice and
in the latter by necessity), and regional administrative planning, which focuses almost
exclusively on the planning process - or more accurately, the administrative
dimensions of the planning process.
Once again these characteristics can be explained largely by the disciplinary or
professional origins of the various approaches to regional planning. Those approaches
which focus on regional development rather than regional planning have emerged from
fields of interest which are concerned primarily with development processes -
economics, natural resource development and rural development. Thus, for example, an
economist involved in development planning is primarily interested in processes of
economic growth or change and, therefore, in the content of development plans rather
than the process of preparing (or implementing) them. His (or her) interest in the
process of planning is often confined to the choice of appropriate economic techniques
for the analysis of data (for example, input-output analysis or cost-benefit analysis) or
appropriate models for conceptualizing the development process.
Land-use planning, on the other hand, sees ‘planning’ as a discipline in its own right,
not merely as an ‘applied’ extension of another discipline such as economics or
architecture, and so is concerned with the process of planning as such. It is significant
that the distinction between substantive theory and procedural theory (theories in and
theories ofplanning) is only recognized in land-use planning, which has an extensive
literature on both the distinctions and the interrelationships between the two (Faludi,
1973a, 1973b; Paris, 1982; Healey et al., 1982).
In the case of regional administrative planning, the focus of attention can be
explained in terms of its origins in public administration (or development
administration), which is primarily concerned with the administrative organization and
management of government. Planning is thus seen primarily as a problem of
organization and management, rather than one of development policy.
National development planning appears to have moved further and faster than
regional planning in terms of bridging the gap between substantive and procedural
theories of planning. The ‘crisis in planning’ in the late 1960s (Faber and Seers, 1972)
resulted in, among other things, increasing concern with the process of planning and, in
particular, the relationship between planning and implementation. This in turn has
resulted in some attempt to merge the economist’s contribution to planning, which
focuses on the process of development, with that of the development administrator, who
is concerned with the process of administration and planning, although there is still a
tendency for economists to play the dominant role. In the case of regional planning,
however, progress has been much slower and (except in land-use planning and
community planning) it is only relatively recently that the need to bridge the gap has
been recognized. We shall see later that, partly because of its relative neglect in the past,
regionalplanning - rather than regional development -is the main focus of attention
here.
In this section we have used the relative importance attached to regional development
and regional planning as a criterion for classifying different approaches to regional
planning. The sections which follow look in more detail at different approaches to both
regional development and regional planning. Thus the next section compares the
various approaches in terms of the types of regional development policies adopted (that
is, the content of plans), while the last four sections examine various criteria which can
be used to classify different approaches on the basis of the way in which the regional
planning process is organized.
2.3.3. Types of Development Policies
Regional development covers an enormous range of development issues; in fact,

virtually any aspect of development policy can be seen from a regional perspective.
Moreover, any one issue can be approached in several different ways, depending on the
particular theory or paradigm of development which is adopted. Thus, for example,
Friedmann and Weaver (1979, chapter 7) describe a ‘paradigm shift’ in regional
development policy, which occurred in the 1970s largely due to increasing concern with
rural poverty in development theory in general.
It would be very difficult to classify these many different types of regional
development policy in any meaningful way and, fortunately, it is not necessary -for
two reasons - to attempt such a formidable task here. One reason is that, as already
suggested, the main concern is with the process of planning, rather than with regional
development policy; consequently a detailed discussion of development policies is
unnecessary here. The other reason is that we have already limited our sphere of interest
to rural development and, because of the objectives of rural regional planning, we are
particularly concerned with certain aspects of rural development -notably
participation, integration and equality (Table 1). Consequently, we shall simply
consider each of the approaches to regional planning in terms of, firstly, their concern
with rural (as opposed to urban) development and, secondly, their concern with
participation, integration and equality (Table 2).
In the case of regional economic planning, most attention has been focused, at least
until recently, on urban and industrial development, rather than rural development.
This bias can be explained partly by the fact that the most obvious spatial inequalities in
developing countries are in the distribution of urban and industriai activity and partly
by the preoccupation in regional economic theory with the role of ‘growth poles’ and
‘growth centres’ in the redistribution of industrial and urban growth. It was not until the
1970s that regional economic planners began, as part of the ‘paradigm shift’ noted
above, to recognize, firstly, the inadequacies of polarization theories in terms of their
impact on the location of industrial and urban development and, secondly, the fact that
they had neglected the whole question of inequalities within and between rural regions
(Friedmann and Douglass, 1976; Friedmann and Weaver, 1979, Part 3). This has
prompted a number of recent attempts to search for more appropriate forms of regional
development policy and these will be examined in some depth in the next chapter; so far,
however, this response has been sporadic and piecemeal and has had relatively little
impact on regional economic development theory as a whole.
The disaggregation of national plans involves the formulation of policies for both
rural and urban development. However, it is very difficult to make any generalizations
about the nature of these policies because they depend on both the types of policies in
vogue at the national level and the degree and form of regional involvement in policy
formulation. Two comments are, however, relevant. Firstly, the increasing concern of
national planners in most countries with rural development, and with participation,
integration and equality, which has stimulated the demand for regional planning, has
been reflected, at least partially, in the policies formulated for regional development.
Secondly, despite the concern with integrated planning, this approach to planning tends
to have a sectoral bias, in the sense that a regional plan tends to be little more than the
compilation of sectoral plans for the area, because regional planning is seen as an
adjunct of national planning, which is itself sectorally organized.
Land-use planning is, in most developing countries, practised primarily in urban areas.
This urban bias can be attributed partly to the nature of land-use planning, which has a
particularly important role to play in urban areas, where there is intense competition for
the use of land, and partly to limitations of manpower and finance, which prohibit its
extension on a nationwide basis. However, it is sometimes practised in rural areas,

particularly in the context of planned rural settlement programmes, such as Tanzania’s
villagization programme and the various ‘colonization’ or ‘transmigration’ programmes
in countries like Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia. In such situations, its main
contribution to rural development policy is to emphasize the spatial dimension of
integrated development policies, such as the need to plan the location of infrastructure
and services in relation to settlements.
Regional administrative planning in some form or other is practised in both rural and
urban areas and the former has tended to receive more attention, partly because the
majority of developing countries are predominantly rural and partly because rural
development administration tends to present more urgent and obvious problems.
However, its contribution to the formulation of regional development policy has been
minimal because, as noted in the previous section, its main concern is with the process of
planning rather than with development policies.
This leaves three approaches to regional planning which appear to have made the
main contribution to rural regional development policy: natural resource planning (the
only ‘conventional’ approach), IRD planning and community planning. All three have a
distinctly rural orientation (although community planning is also practised in urban
areas) and they all emphasize the importance of an integrated approach to development.
Natural resource planning differs from the other two in that it is primarily concerned
with physical resources rather than with human wellbeing and consequently it gives
rather less attention to equality and participation. Participatory policies, almost
inevitably, tend to be most important in community planning; they usually also feature
in IRD planning but often have to be reconciled with other objectives, such as increasing
agricultural production, which is often more easily achieved by non-participatory
means. Concern to reduce inequality (including both social and spatial inequalities)
features prominently in both IRD and community plans. Actual achievements are,
however, often disappointing, usually because the implementation of plans is hampered
bi the existing structure of political and economic power; the most obvious example of
this is India, where both IRD planning and community development have been adopted
as major strategies for rural development but have had little or no impact on rural
inequalities (Misra and Sundaram, 1980).
2.3.4, r~tra-re~~~na~ or fnter-reghal Planning
The most important criterion which can be used to classify different approaches to the
process of regionalplanning (as opposed to different approaches to regional
development) is the distinction between intra-regional and inter-regional planning. Intra-
regional planning, as already explained in Chapter I, means planning ~jt~i~ a region,
while inter-regional planning means planning the distribution of resources and activities
between regions. The distinction is important because, although the two approaches are
interrelated and often can (and should) be undertaken in conjunction, their demands in
terms of the organization and methods of planning are very different.
Both intra-regional and inter-regional planning are required for rural development
purposes but their roles are different (Table 1). In order to achieve popular participation
and, in particular, horizontal coordination, the need is for intro-regional planning; inter-
regional planning is unlikely to facilitate either. However, in order to tackle the
problems of spatial inequality, the need is for inter-regional planning, since it is this sort
of regional planning which is concerned with the distribution of development between
regions. Both are necessary for the implementation of national plans, since this involves
both the preparation of plans within each region and their integration and reconciliation
at the national level. On balance, therefore, intra-regional planning probably has the
more significant role to play in rural development planning, but the inter-regional
dimension cannot be completely neglected.
How does this compare with the relative importance of intra-regional and inter-
regional planning in each of the seven approaches to regional planning? The first two
approaches, regional economic planning and the disaggregation of national plans,
involve a combination of inter-regional and intra-regional planning (Table 2). In the
case of regional economic planning, however, the main focus has heen on the former, an
emphasis which might be expected in view of its concern with inter-regional patterns of
development. Intra-regional planning has, at least until recently, been regarded very
much as an adjunct to inter-regional planning, in the sense that, as noted earlier,
concern with the inequalities between regions may lead to the identification of selected
regions where intra-regional planning exercises are introduced to combat particular
problems or utilize undeveloped resources. The other approaches to regional planning
are confined entirely to intra-regional planning (Table 2).
At first sight this suggests that, in regional planning as a whole, the intra-regional
dimension has received much more attention than the inter-regional. However, this
ignores the fact that regional economic planning has tended to dominate both the theory
and practice of conventional regional planning in the past. Consequently, inter-regional
planning has played a much more important role than might at first appear. It has, in
particular, tended to dominate the conventional literature on regional planning, at least
until recently, and the activities of research and training institutions.
2.3.5. Type of Region
One of the main causes of the terminological confusion which surrounds the
definition and classification of regional planning is the many different interpretations of
the term ‘region’. The ‘regional concept’ and its implications for the identification of
regions for planning purposes have occupied the minds and pens of regional scientists
(especially geographers) for many decades. Little purpose would be achieved here by
attempting to review the large volume of literature on this topic, especially since
adequate reviews already exist (Hilhorst, 1971; Glasson, 1978, chapter 2). It is necessary
to consider only two aspects of the debate: firstly, the distinction between
‘administrative’ regions and ‘planning’ regions, and secondly, the size of regions used
for planning purposes.
Administrative Regions OYPlanning Regions

The distinction between ‘administrative’ regions and ‘planning’ regions relates to the
criteria used to delimit the boundaries of the regions used for planning purposes.
Although many different criteria can be used, the first-and often the most important
- question for the practising regional planner is whether or not these boundaries
should coincide with those of the existing political-administrative units into which the
country is already divided. In other words, he (or she) has to decide whether to use the
existing administrative regions as a basis for planning or to delimit a special set of
regions purely for planning purposes. The term ‘planning’ region is used here <in a
slightly different sense from that in some texts on regional planning) to refer to the latter
type of region.
It should, of course, be remembered that if it is decided that special planning regions
should be delimited, the next question is what criteria should be used to delimit them. At
that point, knowledge of the alternative criteria which can be used, their merits and
demerits, and the statistical and cartographic techniques which can assist the process of
delimitation -ail of which are well covered in the literature - is obviously required.
The distinction between formal (or homogeneous) and functional (or nodal) regions
(Glasson, 1978, pp. 37-39) is particularly important. But these issues only arise after
considering whether to use administrative regions or planning regions, and only if the
latter are chosen.
Which type of region is most appropriate for rural development purposes? A good
case can be made for both types. On the one hand, the use of special planning regions
encourages a focus on key planning issues or problems, since the regions can be defined
in a way that emphasizes their existence. For example, regions can be defined on the
basis of homogeneity of agricultural conditions or potential, or on the basis of criteria
which are used to measure levels of ‘development’ and thus emphasize patterns of
spatial inequality. The use of administrative regions, on the other hand, generally
facilitates plan implementation (which is normally the responsibility of agencies which
are organized on the basis of administrative regions) and can make the planning process
simpler and more economical, because data is usually available on the basis of
administrative regions and staff based at regional level can be involved in the planning
process. Consequently, it is usually the simplest and most effective way of
disaggregating national plans. Furthermore, because administrative regions are
generally well-known by the general public and sometimes correspond with local levels
of government or other channels of local representation, they may facilitate popular
participation in the planning process.
On balance, therefore, the use of administrative regions is more likely to achieve three
out of the four objectives of rural regional planning: the implementation of national
plans, popular participation and (at least in most cases) horizontal coordination. The
only objective which is obviously more likely to be achieved by the use of special
planning regions is that of spatial equality; most administrative regions include both
developed and underdeveloped areas and so tend to disguise the nature and extent of
inequality (Table 1). The case of horizontal coordination is somewhat complex, since it
can be argued that the problems of coordinating the existing government agencies at
regional level are so formidable that it is easier to define special planning regions and
JPP21:L- c
establish a separate administrative structure, organized in a coordinated manner, within

each region. However, this leads to a different type of coordination problem, that of
coordinating the activities of the special regional administrations with those of the
existing nationwide administrative system. Moreover, this approach is only practicable
when planning is confined to a few select regions. We shall return to both these issues
later.
Table 2 shows which type of region has been used more frequently in each of the
approaches to regional planning. It suggests that special planning regions have tended
to play a more important role than administrative regions, especially in the conventional
approaches. The disaggregation of national plans is the only one of the four
conventional approaches in which administrative regions are used more frequently than
planning regions. Among the unconventional approaches, the balance is more even.
IRD planning is practised in both administrative and planning regions, while regional
administrative planning is, by virtue of its nature, confined almost entirely to
administrative regions. In community planning, ‘regions’ are defined as far as possible
on the basis of recognizable community boundaries and they should thus perhaps be
classified as planning regions; however, they often correspond to areas of traditional
political and administrative jurisdiction and in some countries (such as India) they are
officially recognized as local administrative units.
The bias towards the use of planning regions, especially in the conventional
approaches, is such that, in some countries, planning for administrative regions is not
really regarded as ‘regional planning’. In Kenya, for example, district planning, which is
most appropriately classified as regional administrative planning, has received a great
deal of attention by the national planning ministry since the early 1970s. However, when
a separate regional planning ministry was established in 1982, it seemed to be assumed
that it would be concerned not with district planning but with planning in some sort of
special planning regions, yet to be defined (Sa-Kataka, 1983). It should, however, be
noted that in some countries, such as Tanzania and the Sudan, where official
administrative units are actually known as ‘regions’, the opposite situation occurs, since
the term ‘regional planning’ is obviously used to refer to planning within these
administrative regions, and not to any other sort of ‘regional’ planning. This helps to
explain the term~nological confusion surrounding the term ‘regional planning’.
The widespread use of planning regions in the conventional approaches can largely be
explained in terms of the interests of regional planners, particularly their concern with
regional development policy rather than with the process of regional planning and the
amount of attention that has been given to the ‘regional concept’ and methods of
delimiting regional boundaries. It is those approaches which have emerged from public
administration, rather than from regiona! economics or planning, which think in terms
of administrative regions.
Size ofRegiom
Whether administrative regions or planning regions are used, the question of the size
of the regions also has to be considered. There are, in fact, two interrelated questions
here. One is the actual size of the region, measured in terms of area or population, or
some combination of the two. The other is its position in the hierarchy of regions into
which most countries (especially larger ones) are divided, at least for administrative
purposes. For some planning purposes it may be appropriate not to focus all attention
on one size of region (that is, one level in the hierarchy) but to use several different
levels, allocating different types of planning function to each level and establishing
appropriate channels of communication between them. However, even in this situation,
decisions about size have to be made in order to determine which functions should be
undertaken at each level.
The particular objectives of rural regional planning suggest the need for planning to
be undertaken at several different levels, in order to integrate national and local levels of
planning, but with particular emphasis on the relatively small regions at the lower levels
of the administrative hierarchy (Table 1). The use of relatively small regions facilitates
(although it does not guarantee) popular participation, since local representation is
likely to be more meaningful in such areas. Furthermore, the lower levels in the
hierarchy are also those where horizontal coordination is most important because it is at
these levels that most rural development programmes are executed. Finally, spatial
inequalities are often more easily identified if small regions are used, since larger regions
tend to include both developed and less developed areas and so the degree of inequality
is disguised.
How does this need compare with actual practice in regional planning? Among the
conventional approaches to regional planning, the tendency has been to focus on
relatively large regions, except in the case of land-use planning, where the concern with
detailed layout or design has often necessitated the use of small regions (Table 2). This is
another source of terminological confusion because, although the term ‘region’ has been
defined here to include any sub-national geographical area, it is often used to refer only
to relatively large areas. In countries as diverse as the U.S.A., U.K., Brazil, Sudan and
the Philippines, the term ‘region’ (and hence also regional planning) refers to areas with
several million inhabitants, each incorporating a number of smaller administrative
areas. In Tanzania, the official administrative regions are considerably smaller but they
are still the largest administrative units into which the country is divided. The focus on
relatively large regions can probably be explained partly by the fact that these
approaches to regional planning have been initiated at the national rather than the
regional or local level (a point discussed in more detail later) and partly by the type of
regions on which attention has been focused - particularly urban-industrial regions
and natural resource regions (such as river basins).
The less conventional approaches to regional planning, however, have given much
more attention to relatively small - or in the case of community planning, very small -
regions (Table 2). This reflects the concern in all three approaches with both
participation and horizontal coordination, for which relatively small regions are
required. It should, however, be emphasized that, although it is convenient to group the
three approaches together when comparing them with the conventional approaches,
there is an enormous difference in size between the type of regions generally used for
IRD planning and regional administrative planning (which usually have populations of
between 50,000 and perhaps 250,000) and the much smaller areas which provide the
basis for community levels. We shall see later that both levels are important, although
their functions are different.
23.6. ~eg~offal Coverage
Another important way of classifying different approaches to regional planning is to

consider whether planning covers all regions in the country or only a few selected areas.
This distinction applies only to intro-regional planning, since inter-regional planning
normally covers the whole country because it is concerned with the distribution of
development between regions. The selected regions may be sefected according to any
criteria but usually it is because they have particular characteristics, problems or
potential which warrant special attention. The relationship between rural development
and regional coverage depends very much on the approach to rural development which
is adopted. One approach, which is often known as the ‘transformation’ approach
(Long, 1977), attempts to increase ag~cultural and other forms of rural production by
concentrating investment in a few selected areas, in the belief that this will not only
make a significant contribution to national production directly but will also have a
diffusion effect by encouraging the adoption of similar practices in neighbouring areas.
This approach was particularly popular in the 1950s and early 1960s and it is still
practised to some extent in most countries, especially for the production of certain cash
crops. However, in line with general thinking about development policy, there has been
a movement away from this approach towards an alternative ‘improvement’ approach,
in which the aim is to bring about gradual improvements in all rural areas, in the hope
of not only increasing agricultural production but also increasing rural living standards.
In this latter approach, selected areas may still be singled out for special attention, but
usually only because they face particular problems of underdevelopment.
For present purposes we shall assume that the ‘improvement’ approach is generally
accepted and, therefore, that rural regional planning is intended to facilitate popular
participation and horizontal coordination in all rural areas, not merely a selected few.
Complete coverage is, in any case, necessary in order to implement national
development plans, since most plans have implications for - and must consider the
needs of - all regions. The concern with spatial equality, however, may require a
selective approach, since, as already suggested, regions with particular problems are
likely to need special planning attention (Table 1).
Turning now to the various approaches to regional planning, the majority -
conventional and unconventional - have focused their attention on selected regions
(Table 2). The only exceptions are the disaggregation of national plans, which is
generally undertaken on a nationwide basis because (as already pointed out) national
plans have implications for all regions, and regional administrative planning, which is
usually attempted in all regions because the administrative system (and therefore the
need for administrative planning) is common to all regions. In the case of community
planning, many countries have as a vague aim the establishment of such planning
throughout the country but, with a few exceptions (including perhaps China, India,
Tanzania, Cuba and one or two others), effective community development programmes
exist in only a few areas.
The bias towards selective regional coverage may be explained in terms of three main
factors. One is the tendency of regional planning to focus on development policy rather
than the process of planning and, therefore, on regions with particular characteristics,
problems or potential - regions in which new industrial and urban development is to be

encouraged (such as the Guayana Region in Venezuela or North-East Brazil), river
basins or regions with other particular natural resource characteristics, and the less
developed rural regions which are selected for special IRD projects. Another factor is
that intra-regional planning is often an extension of inter-regional planning, in the sense
that concern with patterns of inequality between regions leads to the selection of a few
regions (such as the urban-industrial growth regions and the less developed rural
regions) which require special planning attention. The third factor is the limited
financial and technical resources available for planning. In the case of land-use
planning, the limited resources allocated to this form of planning generally prohibit its
practice on a nationwide basis, especially in rural areas. In other approaches, such as
IRD planning which is usually supported by overseas technical and financial assistance,
it is usually publicly justified on the grounds that it enables more intensive development
effort (arguments similar to those used in the ‘transformation’ approach) but in practice
its main advantages are that it is administratively simpler and politically more effective
(Chambers, 1983; Rondinelli, 1983).
2.3.7. Planning for Regions or by Regions
The final criterion which will be used to classify different approaches to regional
planning is the question of whether regional planning is undertaken by people at the
regional level (whether they be local political representatives, central or local
government administrative or planning personnel based in the region -or some
combination of these) or by people from outside the region (such as staff of a national
planning agency or short-term consultants). In other words, the question is whether
regional planning is basically centralized or decentralized. This criterion, like that of
regional coverage, applies primarily to intra-regional planning, since inter-regional
planning must normally be undertaken at the national level, by planners who have an
overview of the situation in all regions. The various objectives of rural regional planning
differ in terms of their implications for the centralization or decentralization of planning
(Table 1). On the one hand, there are some fairly convincing arguments’in favour of
decentralization. The most obvious one is the importance attached to participation,
since if regional plans are prepared by people outside the region, ‘participation’ cannot
involve much more than superficial consultation. However, decentralization is also
important in terms of achieving horizontal coordination, because representatives of the
various agencies at the regional level can actually be involved in the planning process
and the interrelationships between activities or programmes are more obvious at this
level, and it helps to reduce the gap between planners and implementers, thus facilitating
the implementation of regional plans and, therefore, the national plans of which they
are components.
However, there are also some arguments against decentralized planning. Thus some
form of national control over regional development policies and programmes is
necessary in order to ensure that important national policies are taken into account at
regional level, otherwise regional planning will not serve as a means of implementing
national plans. Moreover, it can also be argued that many regions do not have the
technical expertise to plan effectively and that decentralized planning is an expensive
and time-consuming way of implementing national plans and policies. And, perhaps
most important, decentralized planning can actually hamper the achievement of spatial
equality, since those regions which are already better off, particularly in terms of access
to finance and trained manpower, are likely to use the decentralized planning powers
more effectively. We shall see later that there are ways of avoiding, or at least reducing,
these problems within a system of regional planning which still incorporates a
considerable degree of decentralization. For the time being, however, the important
point to note is that there are arguments both for and against the decentralization of
rural regional planning.
The various approaches to regional planning differ in terms of the emphasis attached
to centralized or decentralized planning (Table 2). Regional economic planning has
tended to be predominantly centralized, although we shall see in Chapter 3 that there is
some evidence of moves towards a more decentralized approach. In contrast, regional
administrative planning and community planning are undertaken almost entirely by
people at the regional (or community) level. The other approaches usually involve a
combination of centralized and decentralized planning. However, with the possible
exception of land-use planning, the central influence tends to predominate, in the sense
that the planning exercise is initiated at the national level and, if part of it is
decentralized, it is still under national control and direction. For example, in the case of
the disaggregation of national development plans, regions are generally asked to
prepare plans which conform to particular specifications and schedules. Similarly, river
basin planning and IRD planning are frequently undertaken by planners who are based
at the regional level but under the control of national agencies; either they are attached
to special-purpose bodies in the regions (such as river basin authorities or special project
administrations) or they are consultants hired by the central government. This set-up
often defeats the main objectives of decentralization, since the scope for popular
participation is often (although not necessarily) limited and there are problems of
coordination between the planners and the normal administrative structure in the
region, particularly if the latter is responsible for the subsequent implementation of the
plans.
On balance, therefore, there has been a bias towards centralized rather than
decentralized approaches to regional planning. The only approaches where planning is
undertaken primarily by people in the regions are the two unconventional approaches of
regional administrative planning and community planning.
2.4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has distinguished between various approaches to regional planning and
considered the contribution which each has made to achieving the objectives of rural
regional planning identified in Chapter 1. Because of the many different dimensions of
regional planning and the varied requirements of rural development, this analysis has
inevitably been both long and complex. Consequently, some sort of summary is needed
TABLE 3. Contributions to rural regional planning*
Approach to regional Concern with Contribution to

planning rural developmentt
Implement. of Popular Horizontal Spatial
national plans participation coordination equality
A. Conventional
I. Regional economic planning Low Low Very low Very low High
2. Disaggregation of
national plans Medium High Very low Very low Low
3. Land-use planning Low Very low Very low Medium Very low
4. Natural resource planning Medium Very low Very low Medium/low$ Low
B. Unconventional
5. IRD planning High Low Low Medium/low$ High
6. Regional admin. planning Medium Medium Medium Medium Very low
7. Community planning High Very low High High Low
*Only a general indication of contribution is made, using the scale: high, medium, low, very low. For more details, see Tables 1 and 2 and text.
$Combination of concern with rural areas and contribution to rural development policies.
SContribution to coordination is complex; see text.
at this point. Table 3, which is in effect a combination of Tables 1 and 2, attempts to

summarize the most important points which have been made. It indicates, firstly, the
degree of concern for rural development in each of the seven approaches to regional
planning and, secondly, the extent to which each has contributed to the various
objectives of rural regional planning. The most obvious finding from the information
summarized in the table is that the ‘unconventional’ approaches have, on balance, been
more concerned with rural development and have made a more significant contribution
to the development of a relevant approach to rural regional planning. The four
‘conventional’ approaches have all made some contribution, although in different ways,
and we shall see in the next chapter that recent changes in thinking, especially in
regional economic planning, may increase their contribution in the future. However,
their main concerns have been, at least until very recently, at best peripheral and at
worst in opposition to the interests of rural development.
The other major conclusion is that, even among the unconventional approaches, there
is no ‘ready-made’ theory of rural regional planning, in the sense of a cohesive body of
procedural theory about planning in rural regions. They all have significant
contributions to make but they also have serious limitations. This can be attributed, at
least in part, to the fact that, although they are all concerned with rural development in
one form or another, they have all emerged as extensions of other activities, rather than
as approaches to rural regional planning as such.
This leads us on to the problems of regional planning theory in general, and rural
regional planning theory in particular. Early in the chapter the point was made that
there is no coherent body of theoretical knowledge about regional planning because the
various approaches have emerged from different disciplinary and professional origins
and to serve very different purposes. This point has been reinforced by the discussion
which followed, to the extent that one wonders whether it is actually possible to devise a
theoretical framework which can encompass such diverse approaches. Perhaps, like
Gore (1984), we may conclude that the only meaningful theoretical framework lies in
basic theories about the nature and role of the state -and its intervention in
development processes through ‘planning’. Equally apparent from the analysis in this
chapter, and more significant in terms of the focus of the monograph, is the absence of a
coherent theory of rural regional planning. In this case, however, the possibility of
developing a meaningful theoretical framework is perhaps a little less remote, since we
have been able to identify some objectives for rural regional planning and we have seen
that the existing approaches to regional planning, especially the less conventional ones,
have made some contribution towards the achievement of these objectives. Chapter 3
examines these various contributions in order to see whether it is, in fact, possible to
formulate some sort of skeletal theory of rural regional planning.
CHAPTER 3
To wards a Theory of Rural Regional Planning
3.1. INTRODUCTION
The last chapter looked backwards, in the sense that it focused on past approaches to
regional planning and on the gaps in rural regional planning theory. This chapter, in
contrast, looks forwards. It seeks to extract the positive contributions which these
various approaches have made to rural development planning and to see whether they
can be put together to form the basic elements of acoherent theory of rural regional
planning. The chapter is divided into three main sections. In the first section, the same
sort of deductive analysis adopted in Chapter 2 is used to suggest a number of basic
elements of rural regional planning. These may be regarded as hypotheses, which are
then tested in the remainder of the chapter. Thus the second section examines recent
literature on regional planning to see if there is any evidence in support of these
hypotheses, while the third section looks at actual planning practice in individual
countries with the same purpose in mind.
It should be explained that our concern here is with procedural theory rather than
substantive theory. In other words, we are concerned with the process of rural regional
planning - its role, organization and methodology - rather than the process of rural
regional development. Although the reasons for this will be discussed later, it is necessary
at this point to clarify some of its implications. The distinction between procedural and
substantive theory, originally made by Faludi (197313) is generally accepted as a useful
analytical tool but, if taken too far, can lead to misconceptions about the nature of the
planning process. This has been the subject of a major debate among planning theorists
(Paris, 1982; Cooke, 1983) and Faludi’s approach has been heavily criticized. While it is
not necessary to delve deeply into this debate here, its implications in terms of the scope
and objectives of this chapter, and those that follow, warrant brief consideration.
In the first place, our focus on procedural theory is not intended to suggest either that
substantive theory is unimportant in rural regional planning or that there is no
interrelationship between the two. On the contrary, in Chapter 2 we stressed that both
types of theory are essential and demonstrated how, in relation to qualities such as
participation and coordination, the nature of the planning process affects the type of
development policies - and vice versa. This interrelationship can be explained by the
fact that the nature and scope of both regional development policies and the process of
regional planning are limited by the environment in which they operate and, in
particular, the nature of the state and the degree and form of state intervention in the
41
JPP 23:L - c*
process of regional development. Therefore, although the emphasis in the rest of the
Chapter will be on procedural theory, its interrelationship with substantive theory -
and the reasons for this interrelationship - will be kept in mind and discussed where
appropriate.
Secondly, the use of the term ‘procedural theory’ does not mean that the aim here is to
design a model set of planning procedures which can be applied anywhere - or even to
suggest that such a model can ever exist. The relationship between processes of planning
and the environment in which they operate suggests that there can be no one model. The
word ‘theory’ is here used only to mean a set of basic principles or elements which are
common to a relatively large number of rural situations and thus constitute a theoretical
framework for the discussion of rural regional planning and the analysis of alternative
approaches.
Finally, the word ‘theory’ should not discourage those readers whose main concern is
with the practice of regional planning or rural development in a specific context and
who might thus fear that what follows will be too theoretical, in the sense that it will not
bear any relation to practice. On the contrary, in this case the purpose of theory is
simply to provide an analytical framework which will help to describe, explain and -
hopefully - enhance individual practice.
3.2. BASIC ISSUES IN RURAL REGIONAL PLANNING
This section draws upon the analysis of different types of regional planning in
Chapter 2, particularly that part of the analysis summarized in Table 1, which suggests
which types of planning are most likely to achieve each of the four objectives of rural
regional planning. Using the same criteria for classifying different types of planning, it
seeks to identify the main characteristics which seem to be needed in order to achieve the
four objectives and which might thus form the basis of a theory of rural regional
planning.
3.2.1. Type of Planning Profession
It was suggested in Chapter 2 that all three professional types of planning -

socioeconomic, land-use and management - have a role to play in rural regional
planning. This is, of course, not unique to rural regional planning, since most kinds of
development activity have to be planned from socioeconomic, spatial and management
dimensions. However, it is particularly important in the case of regional planning
because the three dimensions of planning have to be very closely coordinated at the
regional level, since this is the level at which plans are actually implemented. And it is
particularly important in the case of rural planning because the three dimensions are
often particularly closely interrelated. Thus, to take a very simple example, when
planning a major rural settlement project, it is necessary to consider the socioeconomic
implications (including overall settlement policy and more specific policies concerning,
say, agricultural production and marketing and the provision of health, education and
other services), to plan its spatial or physical layout (including the location of
infrastructure and services), and to consider its organization and management. If any
dimension is neglected, problems are likely to arise.
Two characteristics of past approaches to regional planning emerged particularly
clearly from the analysis in Chapter 2. One was the relatively little attention given to the
management dimension of planning, compared with the other two, and the other was
the lack of coordination (except in the case of community planning) between the three
types. This suggests that, in the future, particular attention needs to be given to
strengthening the management dimension and integrating it with both socioeconomic
and land-use planning.
3.2.2. Rural Regional Development or Rural Regional Planning
We have already warned that in this section and those that follow the main emphasis
will be on procedural theory rather than substantive theory; in other words, on the
process of rural regional planning rather than policies for rural regional development.
The analysis in Chapter 2 suggests that this emphasis can be justified on two grounds.
Firstly, the emphasis in the past has tended to be on substantive theory, and so
procedura! theory has been relatively neglected. Chapter 2 suggested that this has been
the case in regional planning as a whole and more specifically in rural regional planning.
With regard to the latter, the position is somewhat complex because the main
contributions to substantive theory - that is, to theories of rural regional development
- have not come from regional development theory, since it has devoted relatively little
attention to rural development issues. They have instead come from rural development
and community development theory, through what we have called integrated rural
development (IRD) planning and community planning. The body of substantive theory
which has accumulated from experience with IRD and community development does, of
course, have many gaps and weaknesses. However, thinking has progressed much
further in this field than in that of planning procedures. Consequently, the most urgent
need at present is to improve procedural theory, so that rural development policies can
be formulated and implemented more effectively.
Secondly, the interrelationship between substantive theory and procedural theory is
such that, although one cannot say that either one or other is the more important, one
can expect changes in planning procedures to have some impact on development
policies. Thus, for example, in Chapter 2 it was suggested that regional development
plans are more likely to include participatory development strategies and to be
‘integrated’ if popular participation and horizontal coordination are built into the
planning process. Therefore, our emphasis on procedural theory can also be justified on
the grounds that it will have an indirect impact on rural regional development policies,
as well as a direct impact on the process of planning.
3.2.3. Intra-regional or Inter-regionalPlanning
We saw in Chapter 2 that both intra-regional and inter-regional planning have a role
to play in rural development but that the former tends to be more important, except
with regard to the aim of achieving spatial equality. Intra-regional planning is essential
in order to achieve the objectives of popular participation and horizontal coordination
and it plays an important role in the implementation of national plans. Moreover,
although many of the past approaches to regional planning have focused on intra-
regional rather than inter-regional planning, there has been little coordination between
them and they have received less attention than one might expect in the regional
planning literature because of the dominant role of regional economic planning.
This suggests that rural regional planning should continue to focus on intra-regional
planning, with the aim of combining appropriate elements of the several very different
approaches practised in the past - land-use planning, natural resource planning, IRD
planning, regional administrative planning and community planning. However, it also
suggests that the inter-regional dimension cannot be neglected, since individual regional
plans must presumably be prepared within the context of national policies and
programmes, especially those concerned with the reduction of inequalities between
regions.
3.2.4. Type of Region
Two criteria for classifying different types of region were used in Chapter 2: the
distinction between administrative regions and special planning regions and the size of
the region.
Administrative Regions or Planning Regions

The choice between administrative regions and planning regions is not easy because it
depends on the particular objective concerned. However, the analysis in Chapter 2
suggested that, on balance, administrative regions should perhaps receive higher
priority in the immediate future, partly because they have an important role to play in
achieving three out of the four objectives (the implementation of national plans, popular
participation and horizontal coordination) and partly because planning (as opposed to
routine administration) in such regions has received relatively less attention in the past.
However, it should be recognized that for certain purposes special planning regions
have a very important role to play. Two obvious examples are planning the development
of a natural resource which cuts across administrative boundaries (such as a river basin)
and tackling the problems of underdeveloped areas which would not receive sufficient
attention if planning was confined within the boundaries of administrative regions.
In such cases, it is sometimes possible to reach a compromise by giving administrative
powers to regions originally designated solely for planning purposes. Two such
examples are the Thaba-Tseka District of Lesotho (mentioned earlier), which was
originally established as a special planning region but later given district status (Geer
and Wallis, 1982) and, on a larger scale, the Philippines’ economic planning regions, to
which administrative powers have gradually been bestowed in order to facilitate plan
implementation (Fabella, 1981). However, the creation of new administrative regions is
often not a realistic option because it requires time, money and manpower and is often a
politically sensitive issue. Moreover, it can never be more than a partial solution because
the characteristics of planning regions are such that different regions are required for
different planning purposes and so there is no one ideal set of planning regions.
Consequently, a more practical alternative may be to sub-divide or amalgamate
(depending on the size required) existing administrative regions to create regions for
particular planning purposes.
Size of Region
The analysis in Chapter 2 suggested a fairly obvious need for planning to be
undertaken at a number of different levels, with channels of communication between
them, particularly as a means of implementing national plans. However, it also
suggested that in terms of the other objectives the lower levels in this hierarchy are the
most important. Although the exact number and size of these lower levels and the
relationships between them (and with higher levels) will vary from one situation to
another, there are two kinds of region which seem to be of particular importance: we
may refer to them as ‘districts’ and ‘community areas’.
The term ‘district’ is used here to refer to a relatively small administrative unit,
varying considerably in area and population but characterized as the lowest level at
which most central government agencies are represented and, therefore, the level at
which horizontal coordination is important. Local government organs, or other forms
of local representation, are often also established at this level, thus also facilitating
participation. It is at this level that much IRD planning and regional administrative
planning activity has been concentrated.
The term ‘community area’ is used to suggest local planning units, corresponding as
far as possible to recognized local sociopolitical or cultural groupings but also, if
possible, having some administrative status. This level is particularly important in terms
of achieving popular participation and it is the focus of attention for community-based
planning activities, usually related to some sort of community development programme.
It is, perhaps, symptomatic of the terminological confusion which surrounds regional
planning that neither of the above levels is often actually referred to as a ‘region’. This,
of course, raises once again the question of whether planning at these levels should be
called ‘regional planning’. However, we have argued earlier that a broad definition of
both ‘region’ and ‘regional planning’ is necessary in order to develop a meaningful
theory of rural regional planning; in fact, we have suggested that the much narrower
definitions often adopted may have actually hindered the development of such a theory.
3.2.5. Regional Coverage
It was suggested in Chapter 2 thatcurrent approaches to rural development require

that all rural areas receive attention, not just a few selected regions with particular
problems or potential, as has tended to be the case with many approaches to intra-
regional planning in the past. This does not mean that it may not be necessary, from
time to time, to devote additional attention to certain regions, especially those which are
least developed. Nor does it mean that the same development policies, or even the same
planning procedures, can be adopted in each region. It simply means that there is a need
to improve planning in all rural areas and, therefore, to develop an approach to
planning which can be applied in all regions, albeit with adaptations to meet the needs
of individual regions, rather than just a selected few. We shall see later that this has
particular implications in terms of the ‘technology’ of planning, since it means that the
limited financial and manpower resources available for regional planning must be
spread over the whole country.
3.2.6. Planning for Regions ov by Regions
The arguments for and against the decentralization of planning were discussed at
some length in Chapter 2. The main conclusion appears to be that there is a need for
considerably more decentralization than has usually been the case in the past, in order
to facilitate popular participation and horizontal coordination and improve plan
implementation - but that too much decentralization may make the implementation of
national policies and, in particular, the reduction of spatial inequality, difficult, as well
as presenting financial and technical problems. This suggests that intra-regional
planning should, as far as possible, be undertaken by people in the regions, but with
some central control, coordination and assistance. Unfortunately. this division of
responsibility is easier advocated than achieved, since the forces for and against
decentralization tend to pull in opposite directions, and to vary from one country to
another and from one region to another.
3.2.7. Summary
This section has outlined the main issues which appear to be important in achieving
the objectives of rural regional planning and, therefore, to constitute the basic elements
of a procedural theory. We may summarize these basic elements as follows:
1. more emphasis on inrra-regional planning than inrer-regional;

2. the integration of socio-economic, land-use and management dimensions of planning, with
particular emphasis on the last because of its neglect in the past;
3. the use of a number of different levels of planning region, corresponding as far as possible to
administrative regions and with particular emphasis on the lower levels (including ‘districts’ and
‘community areas’);
4. the establishment of planning in all regions, not just a selected few;
5. a decentralized approach to planning, in which the main responsibility for making and
implementing decisions rests with people in the regions and planning becomes an extension of the
exercise of decentralized political and administrative power.
This does not mean that other forms of regional planning - including ‘conventional’
inter-regional economic planning, urban land-use planning and special planning
projects in selected regions (such as river basins, areas of mineral resource development
or the least developed rural regions) - have no role to play. It merely means that there
appears to be a need for the sort of approach outlined above and that in the past this
need has not been adequately met by conventional forms of regional planning.
3.3. EVIDENCE FROM THEORY
The hypotheses put forward in the previous section were reached by what might be
described as a process of logical deduction, in which the objectives of rural regional
planning (identified in Chapter 1) have been matched against the various criteria used to
distinguish different types of regional planning. However, it is now time to support that
process of analysis with some documentary evidence This section, therefore, examines
recent thinking in the field of rural regional planning, as reflected in the literature, in
order to see what evidence it provides in support of the hypotheses. This will then be
followed by a review of actual planning practice in individual countries in the final part
of the chapter.
It should already be evident from the discussion in Chapter 2 that, because of the lack
of any coherent theory of regional development planning, or even of rural regional
planning, it will be necessary to examine several different bodies of literature and select
from each those points relevant to rural regional planning. In this section, therefore, we
shall look in turn at each of the approaches identified in Chapter 2, grouped once again
into the two broad categories of ‘conventional’ and ‘unconventional’ approaches.
3.3.1. Conventional Approaches
One of the conclusions which emerged from the analysis in Chapter 2 was that the
conventional approaches seem to have made much less contribution to the development
of rural regional planning theory than the unconventional ones. This does not, however,
mean that they are totally irrelevant and our purpose here is to identify those elements
which are relevant, in order to see whether they support our presumptions about the
basic components of a procedural theory for rural regional planning. We shall attach
particular signiiicance to recent trends in thinking, and we shall devote particular
attention to regional economic planning, partly because of its dominant role and partly
because it has undergone significant changes in recent years.
Regional Economic Planning

It has already been noted that in the last decade there has been increasing
dissatisfaction with conventional approaches to regional economic planning and, in
response, a search for more appropriate alternatives. This ‘paradigm shift’ is clearly
reflected in most recent reviews of the state-of-the-art of regional development planning
(Friedmann and Weaver, 1979; Stohr and Taylor, 1981; Mathur, 1981, Part I; Morris,
1981; Gore, 1984) and it is this literature which provides the most significant pointers in
terms of future directions in rural regional planning.
Stiihr (1981) has identified the main shortcoming of conventional regional economic
planning as the fact that it came ‘from above’; in other words, regional planning was
seen as a tool for the development of the nation, rather than for the development of the
regions. Friedmann and Weaver provide a rather more detailed summary of the
problems, which also suggests the areas where changes are needed. They maintain (1979,
p. 129) that:
“Regional planning almost succeeded in making a fetish ofgrowth centres to the neglect of other
dimensions of regional policy. Area or territorially specific pohcies receded into the background ot
academic discussions. As a result, insufficient attention was paid to questions of natural resources.
political implementation, administrative organization, and above all, to rural development.”
The specific question of rural development has been taken up in more detail by Belshaw
and Douglass, who maintain (1981, p. 1) that:
“the prevailing body of theory and techniques for regional planning is poorly adapted both to the
objective conditions in rural regions and to the subjective needs of their rural populations.”
They attributz this, in large part, to the fact, noted earlier, that most regional economic
planning concepts and techniques were originally developed for application in urban
regions in developed countries, not for rural regions in Third World countries. They go
on to identify a number of alternative approaches to rural regional planning which have
begun to emerge.
As one might expect from the above quotations, the alternative approaches have
sought ways of approaching regional planning from the region’s point of view - or in
the words of Stiihr, ‘from below’. Analyzing the main characteristics of these
alternatives is not easy because they take a variety of forms. In fact, as Stahr (198 1,
p. 40) suggests, ‘there may not be only one strategy of developmen “from below”‘.
Furthermore, in terms of our interests, two other problems arise. Firstly, the various
alternatives are not concerned exclusively with rural development, although rural
development does feature much more prominently than in the past. Secondly, they are
concerned primarily with substantive rather than procedural theories; that is, with
regional development rather than with regionalplanning. It is perhaps significant that
neither the critics of the conventional approaches (such as Belshaw and Taylor) nor the
proponents of the alternatives actually recognize the distinction between the two types
of theory, so their failure to tackle the problem of imbalance between the two is hardly
surprising.
The alternative which has received most attention, probably because it is the only
attempt to put together the various characteristics of an alternative approach into some
coherent form, is that of ‘agropolitan development’, initially proposed by Friedmann
and Douglass (1978) and later elaborated by Friedmann and Weaver (1979) and
Douglass (1979). It is also the alternative which is most relevant to rural development.
In 1979 Friedmann and Weaver envisaged that agropolitan development, which they
described (p. 193) as ‘a basic-needs strategy for territorial development’, could form the
basis for a new model, or ‘paradigm’, which would, they claimed (p. 194) ‘break the
impasse in regional studies’. As a result of tnis ambitious claim, the concept received
considerable attention among regional scientists in the early 1980s. However, it soon
became obvious that agropolitan development was an idealistic conception of society,
rather than a practical approach to regional development planning, and so interest in it
diminished rapidly.
Despite the shortcomings of the agropolitan approach, it does, because of its
coherence, provide a useful basis for identifying the main characteristics of the various
alternative approaches. Consequently, it is of value here, in our attempt to assess the
relevance of recent thinking in regional economic planning to the hypotheses about
rural regional planning proposed in the previous section.
Perhaps the most significant characteristic of these approaches is that regions are seen
as entities in their own right, rather than merely as components of the national (or
international) system. This has implications for regional development policies, reflected
in an emphasis on regional self-reliance through what Stohr and Todtling (1978)
describe as ‘regional closure’. However, more important here, it also has implications
for the process of regional planning, since it leads to a focus on inrra-regional rather
than inter-regional planning. Friedmann and Weaver (1979) describe the new focus as a
concern with ‘territory’ rather than ‘function’, and they describe the agropolitan
approach as the ‘rediscovery of territorial life’. The use of the word ‘rediscovery’ (rather
than simply ‘discovery’) reflects the fact that this focus is similar to the concern with ‘the
region’ which preoccupied early approaches to regional planning, before the advent of
what might be described as the ‘growth centre era’. In fact, Morris (1981) suggests that
there is a risk of going too far back into the past and neglecting the inter-regional
dimension of regional planning entirely. His conclusion (p. 186) that ‘primary emphasis
should be laid on intra-regional development’ but that ‘this does not obviate the need
for national spatial policies’ reflects very closely our own conclusions.
Another important characteristic of the various alternative approaches is the
importance attached to relatively small regions. Friedmann and Weaver (1979, p. 197)
suggest agropolitan development should take place within areas varying in population
from 20,000 to 100,000 and they use the term ‘district’ (rather than region) to refer to
such areas. Similar evidence is presented by Stohr and Taylor (1981, p. 454). However,
as Stdhr and Taylor go on to point out, size itself is not necessarily important. More
significant perhaps is Friedmann and Weaver’s definition of agropolitan districts as ‘the
smallest . . territorial units that are still capable of providing for the basic needs of their
inhabitants with only marginally important resource transfers from outside’ (1979,
p. 197).
The third characteristic which is of importance to the present discussion is a concern
with decentralized planning, which has itself emerged as a result of the concept of a
region as an entity in its own right. The agropolitan approach, in particular, emphasizes
that ‘each agropolitan district is a self-governing unit’ (Friedmann and Weaver, 1979,
p. 203). Unfortunately, however, none of the accounts of the agropolitan approach have
elaborated upon what is actually meant by a ‘self-governing unit’, or how such units
may be created. This omission illustrates the weaknesses of the agropolitan model.
Moreover, it also reflects one of the main weaknesses of conventional regional economic
planning: the neglect of the organizational dimensions of planning. It is only very
recently that the importance of the political and administrative framework for regional
planning has begun to be recognized and to receive attention in the literature. The main
contribution to this literature is a collection of papers, edited by Cheema (198 1), which
were originally presented at a seminar organized by the United Nations Centre for
Regional Development (UNCRD). It should be noted that the neglect of the
organizational dimension is again a reflection of the continuing emphasis on substantive
theory rather than on procedural theory.
The final characteristic of the alternative approaches which warrants mention relates
to the question of regional coverage. Although this does not receive a great deal of
attention in the literature, there is some evidence in support of our concern for total
regional coverage. Thus Rodwin (1981, p. 15) suggests that one of the shortcomings of
conventional approaches to regional planning is that they were based on experience in
the developed world, where ‘the toughest regional problems affected only a small
segment of the nation and of the economy’, while in developing countries the situation
‘was often the reverse’. The agropolitan approach seems to assume that all rural areas
would be divided into agropolitan districts but it does not stress this point. Morris
(1981, pp. 202-3) is more explicit; he sees a comprehensive system of regional planning
covering all regions as one of the most important needs in Latin America, where in the
past intra-regional planning has been confined almost entirely to selected regions.
Regional Disaggre.yation of Nutional Plans

It was suggested in Chapter 2 that this approach to regional planning is widely
practised in some form or other but that its relative importance in the literature is much
less. This is reflected in the literature on national development planning as well as that
on regional planning. The main exception is perhaps Waterston’s (1965) monumental
work on development planning, which includes a chapter on the role and organization
of regional planning.
Recently, however, there is some evidence to suggest that it is beginning to receive
more attention (Gant, 1979, chapter 7; Casas, 1981; Kriesel, 1981; Prasad, 1981; Kent,
1981). Moreover, there also seems to be increasing concern that the disaggregation of
national plans be seen from a ‘bottom-up’ as well as a ‘top-down’ perspective and,
therefore, that more attention be given to planning at the lower levels in the
administrative hierarchy, including ‘district’ and ‘community’ levels. This has obvious
implications for rural regional planning and it also has the effect that there is now
considerable overlap between this body of literature and those on regional
administrative planning and community planning, which will be reviewed later in the
chapter. In conclusion, however, it should be stressed that the linkages between
national, regional and local levels of planning is still a relatively neglected field of study.
Land-use Planning and Natural Resource PfanninR

These two approaches have been grouped together because, in terms of their
relevance to rural regional planning, there is some overlap between them. It was
suggested in Chapter 2 that the contribution of land-use planning, as practised in most
Third World countries, to rural regional planning is limited because it tends to have an
urban bias and to be confined to the detailed physical, or design, aspects of planning; it
thus constitutes ‘site planning’ rather than ‘regional planning’. It was, however,
mentioned that its activities are sometimes extended into rural areas, where it tends to
adopt a broader approach to planning, incorporating some socioeconomic dimensions
and focusing on ‘regions’ rather than ‘sites’. This sort of planning is most often practised
in regions requiring special planning attention, including those identified as a result of
interregional economic planning exercises and those defined for natural resource
planning purposes. It might thus be regarded, in some respects, as an integration of
regional economic planning, land-use planning and natural resource planning; however,
since it is somewhat peripheral to the interests of ‘mainstream’ regional economic
planners, it is more appropriate to discuss it under the headings of land-use planning
and natural resource planning.
Two characteristics of this approach to planning are particularly relevant here, given
our hypotheses about rural regional planning. One is the obvious point that it involves
intra-regional rather than inter-regional planning. The other is the way in which the
socioeconomic and land-use dimensions of planning are integrated in this approach, a
characteristic ctearly demonstrated in the literature (Johnson, 1970; Gilbert, 1976;
Rondinelli and Ruddle, 1978; Rondinelli, 1980, 1983; ESCAP, 1979). There is also some
evidence in the r,ecent material, especially that by Rondinelli, that a concern with the
organization and management dimensions of planning, previously neglected in land-use
planning and natural resource planning - as in regional economic planning, is
beginning to emerge. Nevertheless, it is impo~ant to note that, despite this fact, the
main emphasis in all the literature in this field is on policies for regional development,
rather than the process of regional planning. Moreover, the emphasis is also on selected
regions rather than total regional coverage, and on planning regions rather than
administrative regions.
So far attention has been focused on planning in the Third World. However, there are
also some aspects of land-use planning in the developed countries, mentioned briefly in
Chapter 2, which may bear some relevance to rural regional planning in the Third
World. Experience in the U.K. will be used to illustrate this. Firstly, land-use planning
in the U.K. has for many years included a socioeconomic dimension, primarily because
of the lack of systematic national development planning (Conyers and Hills, 1984).
Secondly, it is practised on a nationwide basis, using a hierarchy of administrative areas,
but with particular emphasis on the ‘district’ level. And thirdly, there is increasing
interest in the extension of planning to the ‘community’ or ‘area’ level (Hague, 1982;
Comm_unity Development Project, 1982; Donnison, 1983; TCPA, forthcoming), along
lines which bear a remarkable significance to community development activities in the
Third World. This suggests that there is scope for cross-fertilization of ideas between
developed and less developed countries.
3.3.2. Unconventional Approaches
We have already suggested that our approach to rural regional planning draws more
from the unconventional than the conventional approaches to regional planning and we
have indicated some of the relevant trends. This section aims merely to provide
documentary evidence of these trends. In so doing, we shall maintain the distinction

between the three different unconventional approaches identified in Chapter 2 because,
although there is a significant (and increasing) area of overlap between them, their main
contributions to rural regional planning are different.
IRD Planning
Most of the literature on IRD planning has been generated by consultants involved in
IRD projects, often published under the auspices of the aid agencies sponsoring the
projects, such as the World Bank and the United States Agency for Inte~ational
Development (USAID). Considering the amount of attention which IRD has received
from both national and international agencies. the literature is still relatively scant and,
in particular, lacking in cohesion (Belshaw and Douglass, 1981; Belshaw, 1982b).
Moreover, like so much of the literature reviewed in this chapter, it focuses on
development policies rather than on the process of planning; in other words, it gives
more attention to substantive theory than to procedural theory. Nevertheless, there is
some important material which is of direct relevance to our purpose.
The earliest significant literature is that by Chambers (1974), which is based on
experience gained with Kenya’s Special Rural Development Programme (SRDP), and
by Bendavid_Val(1975), based on work in Thailand. An important feature of both is
that they focus on the actual process and techniques of planning, and Chambers’is
especially significant in that it includes a major component on the organization and
management dimensions of planning. an area which has been neglected in most of the
literature reviewed so far.
Another important contribution is that of the Settlement Study Centre in Rehovot,
Israel (Weitz, 1979). Although based on experience in Israel, the Rehovot approach was
intended for use in any rural environment and applied in a number of projects
supported by Israeli technical assistance. Belshaw (1983), who was involved in a mission
to evaluate its application in Venezuela, identifies several serious deficiencies in the
approach, including its dependence on a relatively well-developed socioeconomic and
administrative infrastructure (like that in Israel) and the failure to ‘institutionalize’ the
planning process. He attributes the latter particularly to the lack of local participation.
Nevertheless, he suggests (1983, p. 27) that ‘perhaps the Rehovot approach represents,
in its systematic comprehensiveness, the highest achievement of the first generation of
methodologies for rural regional planning?
Belshaw himself has made a significant contribution to the debate on TRD planning,
based on experience in a number of countries, especially Tanzania (Belshaw, 1978, 1979,
1982a, 1982b). Although his main interest is in rural development policy rather than the
actual planning process, he has given considerable thought to the details of the steps
involved in the preparation of an ‘integrated’ plan and to the ‘institutionalization’ of the
planning process. Moreover, as already noted, he and Douglass have undertaken a
critical review of conventional approaches to regional planning in terms of their
relevance to rural development (Belshaw and Douglass, 1981), thus helping to bridge
the gap between the different approaches to rural regional planning. We shall return to
this point later.
The need to institutionalize the pIanning process has become a major focus of
attention in the last few years, owing to the increasing evidence of lack of follow-up after
the consultants who are hired to prepare IRD plans depart. This has led to considerable
concern regarding the organization of IRD projects, including the lack of popular
participation and, in particular, the problems of integrating the project administration
into the existing administrative structure. This concern is reflected in the work of
various American consultants involved in USAID-funded IRD projects, especially
Development Alternatives Inc. (forthcoming), and in a report by the World Bank on the
organization of IRD projects (World Bank, 1980), based on its experience in a number
of countries.
Finally, brief mention should be made of the literature which has emerged from IRD
planning work on the subject of methods of conducting rural surveys (Chambers, 1981,
1983; Longhurst, 198 1; A~riculturalAdministration, 1981; Honadle, 1982). The main
focus of this literature is the search for survey methods which are quicker than
conventional social survey procedures but nevertheless yield reasonably accurate data;
these methods have come to be known as ‘rapid rural appraisal’. However, there is also
a concern, reflected especiaily in Chambers’ later work (1983), with the need to change
the whole focus of rural development research (and, in fact, any form of intervention in
rural development) so that it is more relevant to the needs and problems of the majority
of the rural poor.
It thus appears that the literature on IRD planning, despite its gaps, demonstrates
increasing concern with many of the elements of rural regional planning embodied in
the hypotheses put forward in the first section of this chapter. In conclusion, however, it
should be emphasized that the focus of attention in all the literature (with the exception
of Chambers’ most recent work) is on selected regions, which receive special planning
assistance, not on all rural regions. Even the concern with the institutionalization of
pianning is only concerned with institutionalizing externally-supported planning
projects into the administrative structure of a few selected regions, not with the
organization of planning throughout a country. This focus is perhaps inevitable, given
the fact that most of the literature is produced by consultants and donor agencies, who
have vested interests in the continuation of such special planning projects. It may thus
be appropriate to conclude with the following comment on the impact of the SRDP in
Kenya, which comes from W.O. Oyugi, who is one of the few commentators on IRD
planning from the Third World itself:
“The point being made is that the SRDP has bad very marginal efttct on the administration of
development in Kenya, if any. No machinery exists which could be used in rcplicat~ng the lessons
learnt. In the absence of such a machinery the few indivtduals who mtght have some good ideas to
replicate can only do so as individuals. In a system that )\ still oriented to bureaucratic norms that is a
rather difficult endeavour.” (Oyugi, 1981, pp. 212-R.)
KegionalAdministrative Planning
The literature on regional administrative planning is more cohesive and so can be
summarized more easily. It focuses on the deficiencies of conventional regional
administrative structures for planning purposes, notably the high degree of
centralization and the lack of horizontal coordination, and on ways of overcoming these
deficiencies, primarily through organizational reform. The reforms inevitably involve a
significant degree of decentralization, including decentralization of the political and

administrative structure of government as well as the planning machinery, since this is
seen as a way of facilitating both participation and coordination. Much of the literature
thus focuses on decentralization and perhaps the main difficulty in analyzing this
literature is that it extends into the fields of local government and general public
administration, both of which contain a vast amount of material which is marginally,
but not centrally, relevant to rural regional planning (Conyers, 1984).
Some of the most useful material has been published as a result of work sponsored by
two major agencies: USAID, particularly through a project on the management of
decentralization based at the University of California at Berkeley (Christensen and
Webber, 1981; Cohen, 1981; Landau and Eagle, 1981; Leonard and Marshall, 1982)
and the UNCRD at Nagoya, in Japan (Faltas, 1977; Cheema, 1981; Cheema and
Rondinelli, 1983). However, a number of individuals have also contributed to the debate
(Bowden, 1979; Conyers, 1981a; Faltas, 1982; Hebbert, 1982; Hyden, 1983). The work
of the UNCRD is particularly significant because it has arisen out of a more
conventional approach to regional economic planning, rather than from independent
thinking in the field of public administration; it thus provides an important bridge
between the conventional and unconventional approaches.
The main value of this literature on regional administration in the Third World for
our purposes is thus in terms of the organizational structure within which rural regional
planning must take place and it is particularly useful since it’is concerned with all
regions, not just (as in IRD planning) with a select few. Its deficiency, however, is - as
we have already indicated - that it gives very little attention to the actual methodology
and techniques of planning. For this reason, therefore, it is important to note the
existence of a different type of regional planning, known as corporate planning, which is
practised in some developed countries, including the U.K. A brief reference to this type
of planning has already been made in Chapter 2. Its significance arises from the fact that
its objectives are to improve horizontal coordination and introduce some sort of
forward planning in regions where a decentralized system of government already exists,
such as the local authorities in the U.K. (Eddison, 1975; Greenwood and Stewart, 1974;
Greenwood et al., 1980; Hinings et al., 1980.
Community Planning
There is a vast literature on what might broadly be described as participatory
approaches to development, much of which has important implications for rural
regional planning, especially the achievement of popular participation and the
organization of planning at ‘community’ level. It is neither possible nor necessary to
review all this material here. Oakley and Marsden (1984) provide a useful overview of
the whole field and we have already referred to some of it. At this point, we shall only
identify selected material which is of particular relevance because it looks not just at
popular participation and community involvement but at their role in the context of
rural or regional planning. This material can be divided into three categories. Firstly,
there are a series of documents produced by the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), following the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
(WCARRD), held in Rome in 1979. Their main focus is the provision of inputs and
services to small farmers but this has led into the much wider fields of community
organization and rural planning. Particularly useful is a report published in 1981, which
considers the organization of rural administration and planning from national to village
level (FAO, 1981). It emphasizes the importance of both vertical and horizontal
coordination and the need for planning to be undertaken at a number of different levels.
It suggests that three sub-national levels are particularly important: the ‘district’, which
should have a population of no more than 100,000 and should ‘be the lowest possible
administrative unit consistent with a wide range of technical, administrative and
commercial services, planning efficiency, and government financial and technical
resources’ (p. 27); a level below the district which is ‘the level of agricultural service
provision and input delivery to the local farming community’ (p. 8); and the village
level. It then describes in some detail the organization of activities and services at each
level, focusing in particular on agricultural organization.
The second body of literature is produced by the International Labour Office (ILO),
under the auspices of its World Employment Programme Research. It includes a series
of working papers on various aspects of popular participation, including the overview
by Oakley and Marsden (1984) mentioned above and, more directly relevant here, a
series of case studies on ‘decentralized planning’. Unfortunately, there has as yet been
no attempt to draw any general conclusions on decentralized planning from these case
studies. However, a brie’f but useful framework for a decentralized approach to rural
planning is provided in a chapter of an earlier IL0 publication (Harvey et al., 1979, Part
D). An important point made in this chapter is that ‘planning’ should not be seen as the
exclusive responsibility of professional planners; local field staff and representatives of
the local community should not merely be involved in planning but should see
themselves as ‘planners’. This view, which is implicit - but seldom actually stated in
these terms - in most of the literature on community development, is in stark contrast
to the view expressed by many of the consultants on IRD planning, who emphasize the
importance of technical planning expertise.
The third body of literature on community planning is the result of a variety of
activities undertaken in the U.S., often through research supported by USAID. It
includes the findings of several major research projects on popular participation and
rural development administration undertaken by the Maxwell School at Syracuse
University (Uphoff and Esman, 1974; Cohen and Uphoff, 1977, 1980; Uphoff et al.,
1979) some of the material published in connection with the decentralization research
project at Berkeley, mentioned above (Leonard and Marshall, 1982), and some work by
a group of consultants known as The Development GAP (O’Regan et al., 1979). There is
considerable overlap between this material and the other work on IRD planning and
regional administration supported by USAID and this is perhaps reflected in the
tendency, characteristic of much of this literature, to adopt what might be described as a
‘top-down’ rather than a ‘bottom-up’ view of participation. However, because of this
overlap, it also plays a useful role in that it helps to link together the three
unconventional approaches to regional planning and thus to indicate both the potential
and the actuality of such a linkage.
3.3.3. Summary and Conclusions
Three main conclusions emerge from the necessarily rather superficial literature
review in this section.
Firstly, there is now widespread recognition of the deficiencies of conventional
regional planning, particularly in terms of the needs of rural development. Moreover, a
review of both conventional and unconventional approaches does provide evidence in
support of most of the hypotheses about rural regional planning presented in the first
part of the chapter.
Secondly, although this supporting evidence is drawn from a variety of very different
approaches to regional planning and has not yet been integrated in any systematic form,
there are significant areas of overlap, even between the conventional and
unconventional approaches, which help to suggest the way in which it could be
integrated. This overlap is reflected particularly in the work of people such as Cheema,
Rondinelli, Belshaw and Douglass, whose interests and experiences cut across the
conventional boundaries, and in some of the institutions (such as the UNCRD) and
donor agencies(such as USAID) which have supported their work. However, it should
also be noted this overlap also suggests some of the problems of such an integration,
such as the conflicts between the ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ views of rural regional
planning mentioned above.
Finally, the literature, perhaps inevitably, reflects the fact that most of its authors and
sponsors are ‘outsiders’, rather than people engaged on a full-time basis in rural regional
planning within a particular country. This results in three major deficiencies. First, some
of the literature is too ‘theoretical’, in the sense that it is not sufficiently related to
practical experience, like the agropolitan model. Second, too much attention, as already
noted, has been focused on planning in selected regions with large injections of outside
finance and technical assistance, particularly in the case of IRD planning. And third,
there is still the tendency in much of the literature, despite the stated concern with
development ‘from below’, to adopt a ‘top-down’ view of rural regional planning, even
in some of the literature on participation and community involvement. In order to try to
balance this ‘outside’ view, the next section of the chapter looks at experience in
individual countries, in an attempt to obtain an ‘inside’ view.
3.4. EVIDENCE FROM PRACTICE
This section exarnines rural regional planning practice in individual less developed
countries. Inevitably the coverage is highly selective - in two ways. It is selective
because it is obviously beyond the scope of this monograph to provide a comprehensive
review of regional planning practice throughout the less developed world, and so
reference is made only to those experiences which appear to support the hypotheses
about the basic elements of rural regional planning proposed at the beginning of the
chapter. And it is also selective because documentary information on this sort of
planning practice is limited and often available only within a country, and so coverage is
limited to those examples for which I have been able to obtain information, often
through personal involvement or contacts. The aim, therefore, is merely to provide

sufficient evidence in support of the assumptions made earlier to warrant more detailed
examination of their implications in subsequent chapters.
The only individual country for which documentary information of this nature is
readily available is India (Roy and Patil, 1977; Misra and Sundaram, 1980). India has
for many years been struggling to establish an approach to rural development planning
which includes most of the elements identified earlier in the chapter, particularly the
integration of socioeconomic, land-use and management dimensions, the use of a
number of different planning levels (appropriately known in India as ‘multi-level
planning’) but with special emphasis on the lower levels (districts, blocks and villages),
and the concomitant decentralization of political, administrative and planning powers.
Moreover, coverage extends through the country, although some areas have from time
to time received special attention, often with foreign assistance (see, for example, Shelat,
1982). It would be misleading to suggest that the Indian experience be used as a model,
partly because many serious problems remain unsolved and partly because we have
already implied that there can be no one model which is universally applicable.
However, it does provide some very valuable lessons.
Experience in two other countries of South Asia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, is more
recent and piecemeal, but nevertheless relevant. In Sri Lanka there is evidence that a
systematic approach to planning at district level is beginning to emerge (ILO, 1978;
Amarasinghe, 1982; York-Smith, 1983). The way in which this approach is emerging is
particularly interesting because it resembles that of rural regional planning theory in
general. It seems to represent a convergence of experiences in several different and
previously uncoordinated approaches to regional planning, particularly the three
unconventional approaches (IRD planning, regional administrative planning and
community planning) but also to some extent the disaggregation of national plans and
(through river basin planning) natural resource planning. Its aims thus include
strengthening the district administration, incorporating a modified form of IRD
planning into the normal district administrative system and (to a lesser extent)
improving participation by strengthening links between district and village levels.
In Bangladesh a similar sort of approach seems to be emerging, but in a rather
different way. Much of the experience with rural development planning in Bangladesh
can be traced back to the wellknown Comilla project, a pilot project in which the main
aim was to achieve ‘integrated’ rural development at the ‘community’ level, primarily
through cooperative enterprise. Attempts to extend the Comilla model throughout the
country during the 1970s encountered a variety of problems (Blair, 1974; Khan, 1979),
which in turn have resulted, among other things, in recognition of the need to strengthen
local administration (especially at the thana level) and to develop appropriate planning
procedures at this level (Ahmed, 1980; Bangladesh, 1982; Jones, 1983).
Two other Asian countries offer diverse, but interesting, experience of a more limited
nature. In South Korea rural development effort in the 1970s focused on the Suemaul
Undoong, or New Village Programme, where village level development planning was
supported by effective linkages to county, provincial and national levels (Douglass,
1981; Kriesel, 1981). And in Malaysia, rural development in the late 1950s and early
1960s revolved around the ‘Red Book’ or ‘operations room’ system, a management
system designed to coordinate the planning and implementation of rural works

programmes (Esman, 1972). The system worked effectively for a number of years and
can provide some useful lessons for use elsewhere, despite the fact that it encountered
problems later and subsequent attempts to introduce similar systems, modelled on the
Malaysian approach, in some other countries have also had limited success.
Finally in Asia, brief mention of the Chinese approach must be made. The relevance
of the Chinese ‘model’ is, of course, limited - partly because the Chinese situation is so
different from that in any other country and partly because of the substantial changes
which have taken place within China in recent years. However, it is possible to obtain
some ideas from the Chinese approach, particularly with regard to the disaggregation of
national plans through a combination of ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ processes, the
decentralization of political, administrative and planning powers to a hierarchy of
administrative levels, and organization and mobilization at the community level (Aziz,
1978; Conyers, 1977; Wu and Ip, 1981; Cheema, 1983).
In Africa, experience in four countries is of particular interest: Kenya, Tanzania,
Botswana and Lesotho. Brief reference has already been made to the district planning
methods used in Kenya in association with the SRDP in the late 1960s and early 1970s
since they were used by Chambers (1974) to formulate more general prescriptions for
rural development planning. Since the SRDP was terminated in 1976, the Kenyan
government has put considerable effort into developing an approach to district planning
which builds upon some of the lessons learned from the SRDP experience but can be
applied in all districts without special overseas financial or technical assistance.
Significant components of this approach include the gradual decentralization of
administrative and planning power; to district level, the appointment and training of
district planning personnel, and attempts to integrate district plans into national plans
(Kenya, 1979). Kenya’s approach should not be regarded as a model any more than that
of India - and for the same reasons; but, like the Indian experience, it does provide
some very useful lessons.
Tanzania’s contribution is more piecemeal. In addition to the wealth of experience
gained from IRD planning (the result of dividing the country up among donor agencies
in the 1970s) much of which has been documented by Belshaw (1978, 1979, 1982a),
Tanzania’s 1972 administrative decentralization reform was designed, at least in part, to
facilitate the planning and implementation of rural development programmes at
regional and district levels (Conyers, 1974; Fortmann, 1980; Hill, 1980; Mawhood,
1983). Moreover, in association with the decentralization programme, the government
introduced a system for disaggregating the preparation and implementation of capital
works programmes, designed by management consultants and involving a rather
complex process of ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ communication (Tanzania, 1974). And
finally, a great deal of effort has been put into the planning and management of
development at village level, as part of the ujamaa village programme. Major problems
have been encountered in all these activities and there has been insufficient attempt to
put them together to form a comprehensive approach to rural regional planning,
although most of the components are there. Nevertheless, many important lessons can
be learned from these numerous and varied experiences.
Botswana’s main contribution is in terms of the methodology of planning at district
level. A detailed set of planning procedures has been designed, deliberately

incorporating both a socioeconomic and a land-use dimension and documented in the
form of a comprehensive manual (Botswana, 1980; Reilly, 198 1). Two potential
weaknesses of the system do, however, seem likely to cause problems: firstly, the lack of
sufficient political and administrative decentralization to district level; and secondly, the
fact that expatriate personnel have played a large part in the design and initial operation
of the system and it remains to be seen whether it can be successfully ‘institutionalized’.
Lesotho’s experience of planning in mountainous areas has already been mentioned
briefly. The planning system as a whole in Lesotho remains relatively centralized
(Hirschmann, 1981) but the Thaba-Tseka Project, which began as an IRD project but
then became a pilot project in district level planning provides an interesting case study
of an effort to integrate IRD planning and regional administrative planning, not unlike
that in Sri Lanka (Geer and Wallis, 1982; Qobo, 1983).
There are no doubt a number of other countries with relevant experiences. However,
the only other one which we shall consider here is Papua New Guinea, which has two -
very different - types of contribution to make. One is its experience with the design and
implementation of a major political and administrative decentralization programme
(the introduction of provincial level governments) at the end of the 1970s which has
wider implications in terms of the organizational aspects of regional planning (Conyers,
1981a, 1981b; Tordoff, 1981; Hinchliffe, 1982). The other is its system of national
planning (Allan and Hinchliffe, 198 l), which is not directly relevant to regional
planning but provides a useful example of a ‘management’ approach to planning, which
could (with modifications) be applied at regional level. One of the main problems facing
Papua New Guinea in the early 1980s is the development of an appropriate system of
planning at provincial level and the coordination of this with national planning
activities (Allan and Hinchliffe, 1980; Bray, 1984).
3.5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter began by making some proposals regarding the basic elements of a
theory of rural regional planning, based on the analysis in Chapter 2. It then went on to
consider the evidence in support of these hypotheses, looking firstly at the theoretical
literature on regional planning and then at planning practice in individual countries.
Both types of evidence tend to confirm our earlier assumption that it is not possible to
formulate any one ‘model’ of rural regional planning which can be applied universally.
Moreover, they also suggest that it is not easy to design, let alone implement, any
effective approach to rural regional planning because its objectives are complex and, in
some respects, conflicting. However, there does seem to be sufficient evidence to
support the hypotheses put forward and, therefore, to agree upon the basic elements of
some sort of procedural theory. In summarising these basic elements, or requirements,
of rural regional planning it is useful to divide them into two types: those related to the
organizational structure within which planning takes place and those concerned with
the methods or procedures of planning.
In terms of organizational structure we have identified the need for a hierarchy of

planning levels, corresponding as far as possible to administrative areas and with
particular emphasis on the lower levels in the hierarchy, especially those referred to here
as ‘districts’ and ‘community areas’. The importance of political and administrative
decentralization has also been demonstrated. Decentralization is necessary in order to
facilitate popular participation and horizontal coordination within regions and to
ensure that regions have sufficient control over their own resources to be able to
implement policies and plans.
With regard to planning procedures, one of the most significant findings is the need to
interrelate socioeconomic, land-use and management planning approaches within a
region, and in particular to strengthen the management component, which has tended to
be neglected in the past. Planning should not be seen as a ‘one-off exercise, resulting in
the preparation of blueprint plans which are unrelated to normal administrative
processes, but as part of an ongoing process of managing change, which involves
building upon and strengthening the existing administrative system. This in turn means
that planning procedures must be relatively simple, so that they can as far as possible be
adopted by existing regional personnel, without large inputs of additional financial or
technical resources. This is especially important in view of the fact that this sort of
planning is required in all regions, not merely those with special problems or potential.
Finally, there is also a need to improve linkages between the various levels in the
administrative and planning hierarchy, in order to achieve an appropriate balance
between ‘top-down* and ‘bottom-up’ planning approaches.
In conclusion, it is important to note that the two types of requirement,
organizational structures and planning procedures, are interdependent and therefore are
both equally important. One of the main weaknesses of conventional approaches to
regional planning has been the tendency to separate ‘regional planning’ from ‘regional
administration’. We therefore conclude with a plea for the integration of regional
administration and regional planning.
Bibliography
Agricultural Administration (1981) Symposium on rapid rural appraisal, special issue, November.
Ahmed, F. (1980) Administrative reforms for decentralized development in Bangladesh. In: Adminisfrative
Reformsfor DecentralizedDevelopment. (A. P. Saxena, ed.), Asian and Pacific Development
Administration Centre Kuala Lumpur, pp. 43-48.
Alavi, H. (1972) The State in post-colonial societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh, New Leff Review, no. 74;
reprinted In: (H. Goulbourne, ed.), Polirics and State in the Third World. Macmillan, London, 1979,
pp. 38-69.
Allan, B. and Hinchliffe, K. (1980) National planning + decentralization = regional planning? Papua New
Guinea’s experience, Conference on Methods of Rural Regional Development Planning, University of
East Anglia, School of Development Studies, Discussion Paper 76.
Allan, B. and Hinchliffe, K. (1981) Planning. Policy Ana1ysi.y andPublic Expenditure: Theory and rhe Papua
New Guinea Experience, Cower, Farnborough.
Amarasinghe, P. (1982) A Districr Planning Approachfor SriLanka. Institute of Social Studies, MA Research
Paper, The Hague.
Amin, S. (1976) Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism. Brighton,
Harvester Press.
Apthorpe, R. J. (1983)The context of policy: cities and development, Cities. 1. 185-93.
Aziz, S. (1978) Rural Development: Learningfrom China, Macmillan, London.
Bangladesh (1982) Resolution on Reorganization of Thana Administration, Dacca.
Bates, R.H. (1983) Essays on the Political Economy ofRural Africa, chapter 5 The nature and origins of
agricultural policy in Africa, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Belshaw, D.G.R. (1978) Planning methodologies for integrated rural development at the”grass-roots” level.
In: Principles and L.imitationJ of IntegratedRural Development. A Report on an International Workshop
ar Giessen. Sepfember 1978 (M. von Boguslawski, ed.). reprinted by University of East Anglia, School
of Development Studies, Reprint X3.
Belshaw. D.G.R. (1979) Decentralized planning and poverty-focused rural development: intra-regional
planning in Tanzania. In: Papers on the Political Economy of Tanzania (K.S. Kim, et al. eds),
Heinemann. London, reprinted by University of East Anglia. School of Development Studies, Reprint
81.
Belshaw, D.G.R. (1982a) An evaluation of foreign planning assistance to Tanzania’s decentralized regional
planning programme, 1972-81 ,Applred Geography. 2,291-302.
Belshaw, D.G.R. (1982b) Decentralization and integrated development planning: unintegrated theory and
disintegrated practice, Developmen! Studies Associa/ion. Regional Development and Planning Study
Group Meeting, University of Nottingham, March 1982 (outline paper only).
Belshaw, D.G.R. (1983) An Application of’fhe ‘Rehovot Approach’ to Rural Development in Venezuela: a
MethodologicalApproach, University of East Anglia,School of Development Studies, Discussion
Paper 111.
Belshaw D.G.R. and Douglass, M. (1981) Rural Regional Planning in LP.Y.YDeveloped Counrries: Irrelevant
Theory ver.\us UnmnformedPractice University of East Anglia, School of Development Studies,
Discussion Paper 90.
Bendavid-Val, A. (1975) The themes-strategy-projects approach to planning for regional development.
In: Ac,rion-Oric,rz/rd Approaches to Re,qionul Development Planning (A. Bendavid-Val and P.P. Wailer.
eds) Pracger. New York, pp. 3-17.
Berry. L. ( 1983) Rcvicw of’ft-ogre.c.c in C’omhntr.ng De\errifica/ion in rhr Sll[lano-Sohrlian Area. UN
Sudano-Sahelian Office, Nairobi.
Best. .I. (19X3) What is “rural dc~clopment”?. RRDCRu//etin. Reading Univcwty. .lune 19X3. p. 27 (IC\ICLC
article).
Biawaa. A.K. (‘I rr/. (eds) (19X3) K,wr Nrnc//7/)cvclo~nwnr. Tycoly Int.. Dublin.
Bla,r, H. W. ( 1974) 7%~ /l/u\, ,‘c,,<‘\ \ of Cqut!,~: fn\t/tuttouat ,Approac~hr\ ,o Rurcrl f)c~~~c~lr,f”“~‘tft ,,I Hotr,~~lnrlc\lr,
Ithaca. Cornell IJn~\er\ity. C‘cntcr Ior International Studies. Special Series on Rural Local
Government. I
Botswana ( 19X0) f)fctr-,c’t f’lrtnnuy fftrmlboo~, Mlnlstl-y of Local Govcrnmcnt and Lands. Gabcrone.
Boudeville, .I.R. (1966) /‘rob/cm\ o,/ Rq:,om~l ~~cowm~c~ P/annin,q Edinburgh Umverslty Pr-e\s. Edlnhurph.
Bowden P. (1979) The adminIstr,ltion of regional de~elopment,.lou,-nrrl o/,4r/r,fini\r~.tr//olr Owww\, 18,
193-201.
Bray, M. (1984) /)ec,c,ntr-alrzation cmdEduca~rona/ Planning rn Papua NFM. Guinea.
Casa\. P.I.. de 135 (I 9X I) Central planning. national policies and local rural development programme\: the
planning process tn Latin Ametxa and the Caribbean. In: RuraI Chan,ye; The Challcngc /in!- .4,s,-ic u/tu,-rrl
t‘c~onomt~t\ (G. Johnson;IIK~A. Maunder, cds). Gowcr. Farnborough. pp. 167-85.
Castells. M. (197X) C‘IIJ,. (‘/(I>\ c//~t//‘owor. MacMillan, London (originally published in f:rench in 1972).
Chambers R. ( 1974) .Mrrmt,~in,~ Rwal f)c~~~~/opnrc~nt.- Il~fwr~enc e trnd Prewriprron$ li_om Lo\ t ,3fi.~ut.
Scandlnawan Institute for African Studs. Uppsala.
Chambers. R. (19X1 ) Rapid rural appl-a~wl: I-atlon‘llc and rrpcrtoirc, /‘&tic ,ltb,~~n~\rl.~ti~t~cr~~~/f)c~~‘clof~~~~c~nt.
1.9s106.
Chambers. R. (19X3)R~r,.ctl/)~,~~~,/of~t,tc~rt; I’utttyg the /.ott I‘rrtt Longman. London
Cheema, G.S. (cd.) (I981 ) fn\tttrtt~outrl f)tnrcn\too\ o/ Rqional Dnc/opment. Marwen A\la. Singapore. for
UNCRD.
C hccma. G .S, ( 19X3) f)c,c,c,nt,.crl,-nrlorl rtnd Kwol Oewlopment: The (‘au Snrc!,~ of Qi- I’: Pcoplc’t C‘omnrunc~ in
C‘hinct. N;~goy;~. .lapan: (Jnited Nation\ Centre for Regional Development. Working Paper no. X3-4.
Cheemn. G .S.and Rondinelll, D.4. (eds) (I 983) /~ecrntrrr/~=atron and fIe~~e/opment: f’olfcl, /nfp/L’t?I1,~~tNti~~tt tn
Do’elopin,~ (‘ountrwt Saee, Beverly H 111s.
Christensen, K.S. and Webber, M.M. (1981) On .St.y/es of‘Non-CentralizrdPlannin,~. Project on Managing
Decentralization. University of California at Berkeley.
Cohen. .I. M. and Uphoff, N.T. ( 1977) Rwol Dnelopmcnt Particrpctrron: C‘onccpt$ am/ .MPO wt-c\ /w Pwjcc I
Lkw,yn, fnlplc,nll,ntcttio,I (t~~(/~~~a/u(tt~o~~. Ithaca, Cornell IJniverslty. Center for International Studlcs,
Monograph 2.
Cohen. .l.M. and Uphoff. N.T. (1980) Participatlon’a place in rural development: wcklng clarlry through
hpeclficity. U’orlrlf~c~~clof~rnr~~t, 8. 213-35.
Cohen, S. et d. (I 9X1) Decc~nr,.a/r;ation; A I-kamellvr-X fat-fo/ic~~Antr!,‘si\. University of California at Berkeley.
Project on Managing Decentralization.
Community Development Project (1982) In: Critical Readings tn Planning Theor! (C. Paris. ed.). Pergamon.
Oxford, pp. 245-75.
Conyers, D. (1974) Organwation for development: the Tanranian exper~ence..lo/r~r?rrlof’,4~bn/~r,tri.~1rton
O\w\ctrs 8 , 43X-48.
Conyers, D. (1977) AdministratIon In China: some preliminary observations. .fourna/ ofAtf~nrnt\trrrtion
Over.\eas. 16, 98- 113.
Conyers, D. (198la) Decentralization for reglonal development: a comparative study ofTanrania. Zambia
and Papua New Guinea, Public Administration andDevelopment. 1, pp. 107-20.
Conyers, D. (198lb) Papua New Guinea: decentralization and development from the middle, In: f)ewfopment
.from Above or Rrfow.~(W.B. Stohr and D.R.F. Taylor, eds), Wiley, Chichestcr, Chapter X.
Conyers, D. and Hills, P. (1984) An Introduction to Development Planning in the Third World Wiley. Chxhe$ter.
Cooke, P. (1983) Theories off’lannrng am/Spatial Development. Hutchinson, London.
Dickinson, R.E. (1964) Ci!,~andRqion Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Development Alternatives Inc. (forthcoming) Implementatton andSu.ctainahifit~,: Lex.wn~ from fntc,~mtcr/
Rural Development. Kumarian Press.
Donnison, D. (1983) Urban Policy: A Ne\t, Approach, Fabian Tract 487, London.
Dare, R. (1981) Community development in the 1970s. In: Community, Devefopmenr (R. Dare and Z. Mars.
eds), UNESCO, Paris. Part 1.
Douglass, M. (1979) A,yopolitan Development: An Alternativefor Regional Drwlopment tn Arm, Cniveralty of
East Anglia, School of Development Studies, Discussion Paper 59.
Douglass, M. (1981) The Korean Saemaul Undon~q accelerated rural development in an open economy. In:
Stratexier ofRura/Deve/opment (D. Lea, ed.) Methuen, London, Chapter 7.
Eddison, T. (1975) Local Government Management and CorporatePlanning Leonard Hill Books, Leighton
Buzzard. Second edition.
ESCAP (1979) Gu~defines.~~rRur~f Centre Pfann~n~, UN Economic and Sociai CornmIssion tor Asia and the
Pacific, Bangkok.
Esman, M.J. (1972) Administration and Developmenr in Malaysia Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Esman, M.J. (198 I) Field level organization for regional development. In: Institutional Dimensions qfRegiona1
Development (G.S. Cheema, ed.) Maruzen Asia for UNCRD, Singapore, Chapter 2.
Fabella, A.V. (198 1) Regionalizing for administration and development: the Philippine experience. In:
fn.stiruiionaf Dimensions of Regional Development (G.S. Cheema, ed.), Maruzen Asia, Singapore for
UNCRD, Chapter IO.
Faber, M. and Seers, 11. (eds) (1972) The Crrsrs in Plotming, Chatto and Windus, London.
Faltas, M. (1977) Role of Governments in the RegionalDevelopment Process, Nagoya, Japan, UNCRD.
Falias. M. (t982) Decenrralization and the design of planning systems, ~e~eiop~nen? Srudies ~~sue~a/ion,
Regional Development and Planning Study Group Meeting, University of Nottingham, March 1982.
Faludi, A. (ed.) (1973a) A Reader in Planning Theory, Pergamon, Oxford.
Faludi, A. (1973b) Planning Theory, Pergamon, Oxford.
Fields, G.S. (1980) Poverty. Inequality and Development, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
F.>od and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (1978) Reporr on rite FAO/SIDA/DSE fnler-Regio~af S.~,~zposfurn
on Inte~raiEtfRuralDevelopment, Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization(FA0) (1981)Admini.rterin~dgricu/rura/Developmenf.for SmallFarmers:
Issues rn Decentralization and People’s Parriciparion, Rome.
Fortmann, L. (1980) Peasnntr. ~ffciais and Participation in Rural Tanzania: E.vperience rc,ith Villagization and
Dp~en~rfffizurion, Itha 1. Cornell University. Center for International Studies. Special Series on Rurai
Local Organization, 1.
Frank, A.G. (1981) Crisis: in the Third Worid, Heinemann, London, Chapter 7; Economic crisis and the state
in the Thu -I World.
Friedmann, J. and Weaver, C. (1979) Torrirory andFunction: The Evolurion CfRqqional Planning. Edward
Arnold, London.
Friedmann, J. and Douglass, M. (1978) Agropolitan development: towards a new strategy for regional
development in Asia. Ir.: Growth Pole S1rateg.v andRegional Development Policy (F.C. Lo and K. Salih,
eds), Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 163-92.
Gant, G.F. (1979) Devefopmem Administrarion [.Jniversity of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Geer, R. van de and Wallis. M. (1982) GovernFnenr ffndDevefopmenf rn RuralLesotho National University of
Lesotho, Roma.
Ghai, D.P. (1977) What is a basic needs approach to development all about?. In: The Basic Needs Approach 10
Development, (D.P. Ghai ed.) International Labour Office, Geneva, Chapter 1.
Ghai, Y.P. (1976) Control and management of the public economy: research perspectives on public enterprise,
Vwjassung und Rechr in Ubersee (Hambur~g). 9,157-85.
Gilbert, A. fed) (1976) Devefopme~~~ Pfa~~ni~~~and~paiiQ/Srru~ture Wiley, Chichester.
Glasson, J. (1978) .An lnfroducrion fo Re,qionaf Pfanninp Hutchinson, London, second edition.
Gore, C. (1984) Rekqions in Question, Meihuen, London.
Go’ulbourne, H. (ed.) (1979)Polilrcs andStare in rhe Third World Macmillan, London.
Greenwood, R. and Stewart, J.D. (1974) CorporrriePfannin~~ in English Local Government Charles Knight,
London.
Greenwood, R. et al. (1980) Patrerns of Manu~ement in Local Governmeni, Martin Robertson, Oxford.
Griffin, K. (1981) Economic development in a changing world, WorfdDevufopmenr, 9,221-26.
Hague, C. (1982) Reflections on community planning. In: CriticalReadings in Planning Theor.v(C. Paris, ed.)
Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 221-244.
Hail, P. (1974) Urban ffndRe~jona/ Planni~r~, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Hambleton, R. (1978) Policy Planning andloeul Government, Hutchinson, London.
Hansen, N.M. (ed.) (1972) Growth Cenrres in RegionalEconomic Planning, Free Press, New York.
Harriss, J. (ed.) (1982) Rural Developmenf: Theories ofPeasant Economy andAgrmrian Change. Hutchinson,
London.
Harvey, G. et ai. (1979) R~r~fEn~plo~.r:~ -Y( ffndAdm~nis~ralion in the Third Worfd, Gower, Farnborough, for
ILO.
Healey, P. et al. (eds) (1982) Planning Theory: Prospecrsfor the 1980s. Pergamon, Oxford.
Heathcote, R.L. (1983) The Arid Lands; Their Use andAbuse, Longman, London.
Hebbert, M. (I 982) Births and deaths of regional planning agencies, Environmeqr and Planning B. 9,13 I-42.
Heyer, J. (ed.) (1981)RuralDevelopment in TropicalAfrica, Macmillan, London.
Hilhorst, J. (1971) Regional Planning: A ~.vstemsApproQc~~, Rotterdam University Press, Rotterdam.
Hill, F. (1980) Administrative decentralization for development, participation and control in Tanzania,
Journal of African Studies, 6 (4), 182-92.
Hirschmann, D. (1981) A&inOrrrrtion off’lunniny in Lctorho. University of Manchcstcr. Manchester Paper\

in Development, 2.
Hinings, B. PI N/. (1980) Munq~rmcnr Svrrrrn, in I_oro/ <;o~c~nrnr!7t, Umverslty of Birmingham, Institute of
Local Government Studies.
Honadle, G. (1982) Rapid reconnusbance for development admimstration: mapping and moulding
organizational landscapes, World Developmenr. 10, 633-49.
Hunter, G. et crl. (I 979) Polic,y and Practice in Pwal Development, Overseas Development Imtltule. I.ondon
Hyden. G. (I 9X0) Be,,o& li;~;rutrcr m Ta~ranra: C’ntierrle,‘rl~~pnlcnt ctnrl on l’nccrpmt-e;l Pcrrwnr,:,~. Hcincmann.
London, Chapter 4.
Hyden, G. ( 1983) No Shortwrs to I’wgre~.~ Afriutn Development Mana,ycmenr in Pcrcprt ttw. Hcincmann.
London.
International Labour Office (ILO) (1978) />i\rr-ic/ LevelPlnnning irr Sri La&u, Report of an ll.O/Sll~A
Mission, Geneva.
International Labour Office(IL0) (1981-82)Serirs ofreports on particlpatorq planning pubhshed In Geneva
in the World Employment Programme Research Working Paper series.
Jackson, R. (1982) Oli Tedi: The Pot ofGold. University of Papua New Guinea. Port Morcsby.
Jameson, K.P. and Wilber. C.K. (eds) (1981) Socialist models of development, Wo&/ /)e~r/opm~,nt, 9 (9/l(l)
(whole issue).
Johnson, E.A.J. (1970) The Or,yani:rrrion ofSpace irt Developing (~ounrrre.\. Harvard Ilnlvcrslty Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
.Jones, S. (1983) Personal communication
Kent, G. (198 I) Commumty-based development planning, Third Wwld P/annin,y Revww. 3, RI 3-26.
Kenya (1979) Traintng Diy/rkt Dewlopment Teumx A Planning Workshop, Ministry of Economic Planning
and Community Affairs, Nairobi.
Khan, A.R. (1979) The Comilla model and the Integrated rural development programme of Bangladesh: an
experiment in ‘cooperative capitalism’, World Drvelopmem, I, 397422.
Kraushaar, R. (1982) Structural problems and local responses: the final reports of the local Communit>
Development Projects, Community I~evrlopment.lournal. 17,68-72.
Kriesel, H.C. (1981) The need to coordinate central and local rural development planning and administration.
In: Rural Change: The Challen,~e/or A~~~iculru~alEconomivt,. (G. Johnson and A. Maunder, cd\).
Gower. Farnborough, pp. 187-98.
Kuklinuki, A. (1971) Education for regional planning. In: Ir\ur\ uz RejironalI’krnnrnS (D. Dunham and
J. Hilhorst, cds), Mouton. The Hague, Chapter 2.
Laclau, E. (1975) The specificity of the political: around the Poulantras-Miliband debate, Etonont>~ and
Society. S ( I ).
Landau, M. and Eagle, E. (1981) On the Concepr of/)r,cmtra/izrrtion, University ofCalifornia at Bcrkcley.
Institute of International Studies, Project on Managing Decentralization.
Lele, U. (1975) The Deign ofRura/Deve/opment. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
Leonard, D.K. (ed.) (1973) Rrrr-a/Admini.~tration in Ken),a, East African Literature Bureau, Nairobi.
Leonard, D.K. and Marshall, D.R. (eds) (1982) 1nsriturion.x @‘Rural Developntenr for the Poor. IJniversity of
California at Berkeley. Institute of International Studies.
Lipton, M. (1977) Whj,Poor People Staj' Poor: Urban Rios in Rural De\4opmenr. Maurice Temple Smith.
London.
Livingstone. I. (1979) On the concept of ‘integrated rural development planning’ in less developed countries,
Journal qfA,yricultural Economicc, 30,49-53.
Lo, F.C. and Salih, K. (eds) (1978) Growth Pole Strarexy and Regronal Developn7errt f’olic:v, Pergamon, Oxford
Long, N. (1977) An Introdwtion IO the Sorio@!, qfRural Development, Tavistock, London.
Longhurst. R. (ed.) (1981) Rapid rural appraisal. Bullet/n of/he In,trtute o/Development Srudies, Ilniversity ot
Sussex, 12, no. 4.
Mangheri, A. (1976) Clara, E/ire and Communit_y in A.friran Developmm~, Scandinavian Institute of African
Studies, Uppsala, Chapter 3.
Markovitr. I.L. (I 977) Pea er and Class in Africa: An Introduction to Churye and Con_flt~r tn A/k/can Politic.,,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Mathur, O.P. (1981) A Third World view of regional planning. In: Trainin,y,forRe,yiona/ Development
Planning (O.P. Mathur, ed.) Maruzen Asia, Singapore, for UNCRD, Chapter 2.
Mawhood, P. (1983) The search for participation in Tanzania. In: Loco/ Government in the Thtrd Work/:
The Experience of TropicalAfrica (P. Mawhood, ed.), Wiley, Chichester, Chapter 4.
Milibrand, R. (1969) The State in Capitalist Soctet_v, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.
Misra, R.P. and Sundaram, K.V. (1980) Multi-level Planning and IntegratedRural Development in India.
Heritage Publishers, Delhi.
Montgomery, .l.D. (1983) Decentralizing integrated rural development actlvitics. In: /)cc.c,/l/,.rr/i~~/ron rrnrl
I)evc~lopmcnr: Policing Implc~mc~nrcttton tn Dc~lopt~q Cormtrrc~\ (G.S. Cheema ;~nd D.A. Rond~nclli, eds)
Sage, Beverly Hill\, Chapter 8.
Moore, J.R. (ed.) (1967) The Economics Imp~t o/ /he TVA. lJnivcr\ity ofl cnne\Liec Press, Knoxville.
Marl-is, A. ( 19X I ) f.utm Amcrtut: L’umomtc D~clq~mcnt ttndRc,~ioncrl I~i/~i,rc,n/tcttion. Hutch~nson, London.
Oakley, P. and Marsden, D. (1984) 0hs1acle.c andApproaches tu Participution in Rural Developmenr,
International Labour Office. Geneva.
O’Regan. F. ei a/. (I 979) Public, Prtrrkiptttion tn R~yionctl I)c~~l~~pmc~nr f’lcrnntn~, l‘he Development Gap,
WashIngton DC.
Ovcr\eas Development Institute (ODI) (1979) /ntc:~~ttr/cdR~r~~//~~~~~~~/~pm~~~t. OLII Briefing Paper. London.
Oyugi, W.O. (198 I ) Kurd /)cvr~/opmcwr Admin~\trnrtont The /I’~WIWI /z’~pcrtc,nc~c,.Vlka\ Publi\hlng House,
Nairobi.
Paris, C. (cd.)( 19X2) Cr//ic tr/ R~uIinq\ in Plunntyy Theor,,, Pcrgamon, Oxl’ord.
Poulant/a\. N. (1975) Soc~irtl C/N\$‘\ in C‘onrc.,llporctt:l, C‘rrpirtt/,\m. New lxl’t Book\,. I.ondon (originally
publi\hcd In French In 1968).
Prasad. K. (19X1 ) Area planning approach to rural dcvclopmcnt and the prohlcm ol’con\!\tency hetwecn
local and natlonal planning. In: 7‘3ch’urul Cho//cn,yc,. (M.A. Bellamy and B.L. Grccnshlelds. cd$,
Gower, Farnborough, pp. 84-Xx.
Pritchltt, C.11. (1943) 7% TVA, University ofNorth Carolina Pros\. Chapel HIII.
Qobo, M ( 1983) Thuhu-Tu,ho Inrqro/c~l Rurctl Dc,\~c4opmcnt Prqrummc,: un I-yet-tmcnt iu Dc( ~WII.N/IZ~Y~
P/rtnnin,y:. Unlver\lty of Nottingham.Institute of PlanningStudies, MA dl\sertation.
Reilly, W. ( 19X1) District development planning in Botswana. In: .y/r/r/ict tn /)(,(c,ntt-rt/,-trtto,,: /‘spurt h’c~
<;uinu. Hor.\u mu. Sri /.rtnktt. Ilnlversity of Manchester, Manche\tcr Paper\ In I)c\elopment. 3,
pp. 2X+9.
Rondinelll, D.A. (1978) National Investment planning and equity policy In dcvcloping countric\: the
challenge ofdccentrali/ed admlnistration. Polic:vSctmc’e.,. IO, 45-X4.
Rondlnelh, D.A. (19X0) Spcrtiul Anrt/),\i\ for Rr,qtonn/ Dcvrlopment: A C‘UW SW(L, m the Htc~olR~er Hovm of the
Pht/tpptnc~\. The IJnitcd NatIons University. Tokyi)
Rondinelll, D.A. (19X3)f~cvelopmcnt /‘ro/rirc u$ Poli~vFvpc,rimrnt\. Mcthuen. London.
Rondlnelli, DA. and Cheema,G.S. (19X3) lmplementingdecentrali~ation policies: an Introduction, In:
/)rc c~ntrultxrrnn und lkvrlopment: I’ollc:v Implcmc~ntcttion tn Dcvc~loptn,~ (‘ountric,c (G.S. Cheema and
D.A. Rondinelli, eds), Sage, Beverly Hills, Chapter I.
Rondlnelli. D.A. and Mandell, M.B. (19X I) Meeting basic needs in Asia, Public, Admini\trution ond
Dcvc+~pmc,nr. 1. 135-50, 1X9-210.
Rondinelli, D.A. and Ruddle, K. (197X) Urbantzu/ion und Rurctll~rvelr~pment: A Spurrrtl Polrc:l,/orI;‘yuitrrhle
Dc~velopmo~t. Praegcr, New York.
Roy, P. and Patil, B.R. (1977)Mrrmralfor R/o& /xvr/P/onnin,~. Macmillan. Delhi.
Ruttan, V. (1975) Integrated rural development programs: a skeptical perspective, Intcrnulrc cr/Dcve/r~pment
Revic~, 17, 9- 16.
Saha, S.H. and Barrow, C. (cd\) (19X1) Rtver Ro~tn /‘hlnnin,y: Theor~,unc/PruL.tt(.P. Wiley, Chicheater.
Shelat, K.N. (I 982) M~nuol on Plcmnin:: /or Rurrtl /)rv:~/opmmt, GuJerat State Rural Development
Corporation, Gandhinagar.
Saul, J.S. (1979) The state in post-colonial socletles: Tanzania, In: Politics and S/ate in the Thirld World
(H. Got~lbourne. cd.), Macmillan, I.ondon, Chapter 5.
Scare, R. (ed.) (1977) fnduvtrrrtl Society: C/u\\. Clenvajie and Control, Allen & Unwin, London.
Schaffer, B. and Lamb, G. (1981) Gun Eyutt)~bc Or~anizrd.~. Cower, Farnborough.
Seers, D. (1969) The meaning of development. Internuliona/Drvr/opment Revie\j,. 6, December, pp. 2-6.
StBhr, W.B. (19X I) Development from below: the bottom-up and periphery-inward development paradigm.
In: Drre/opment from Abo\‘c, or B&M? (W.B. Stiihr and D.R.F. Taylor, eds), Wiley, Chichester,
Chapter 2.
Stohr, W.B. and Taylor, D.R.F. (eds) (l9Rl)Drvelopment.frum Above or Belong.? The DialecticsofRe~ionnl
Plunntn~ tn Develop@ Countrier, Wiley, Chichester.
StGhr, W.B. and TBdtling, F. (I 978) Spatial equity -some antitheses to current regional development
strategy, Puprrv of the ReSytonul Scirnce Ax~ocirrtion, 38, 33-53.
Tanrania ( 1974) The Plunnin,? and ContrulSyrtem for Decentrulization: Tasks of the Regions andDistricts,
Mmstry of Development Plannmg, Dar cs Salaam.
Tordoff, W. (1981) Decentralization in Papua New Guinea. In: Studies in Decentralization: Papua tVebj>Guinea.
Borc~~‘rtna. Srr /.ctnko, University of Manchester, Manchester Papers in Development, pp. l-27.
Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) (forthcoming) A book reporting the findings of a pilot
project m community-based planning, known as the New Communities Project.
Uphoft‘, N.T. and Esman, M.J. (1974) Local Oyanizatimfor Rural Development: Ana1ysi.r qf’Asian E.kprrirnce
Cornell University, Center for International Studies, Ithaca.
Uphoff, N.T. el ~1. (I 979) Feasihtlity and Application of Rural Development Particrpaiton: A State-o/-the-Art
Paper Cornell University, Center for International Studies, Ithaca, Monograph 3.
United Natlons (UN) (1970)IntejiratetlRiv~r Basin Development: Report qfa PanelqfE~~pert\. New York.
United NatIons (UN) (1975) Popular Participa/ron in Decision-Making for Development. New York.
United Nations (IJN) (1975) River Basin Dc\elopmcnt Polici~c and P/annin,y. Proceedings ofa seminar in
Budapest, UN, Paris.
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), (1980) Deharwc Comments on L’nyrrrr:,~
into Parttcrpation, Geneva; (See also series of UNRISD reports entitled Dralqye about Participatron)
Waterston, A. (1965) Development P1annin.q: kcronv ofE,rperience Johns Hopkins Press, Baltlmorc:
paperback edition 1979.
Weit7, R. (1971) From Pcrt.~ctnt to Farmer: A Rcvoluttonar:)~ Stratr,qy,for Dewlopment, Columbia University
Press, New York.
Weitz, R. (1979) Intqyared Rural Developmmt: The Rehovot Approach Settlement Study Centre. Rehovot.
Israel.
Williams, G. (1979) Takmg the part of peasants. In: Rural Development: Theorrec of Peasant Economic and
A,qrctrian Chan,qc (J. Harriss, ed.), Hutchinson, London. Chapter 16.
World Bank ( 1975) Rut-al Development: Sector Po1ic.y Paper, Washington DC.
World Bank (1980) The Dcvr~n of Or~qanizationvfor RuralDevelopment A Progrcsr Report. World Bank Staff
Working Paper 375, Washington DC.
World Bank (198 I) Accduated Devrlopment in Sub-Saharctn A.fricu: An Agendu for Ac,tion, Washington DC.
World Bank (1983) World Development Report 19X3. Oxford University Press, New York.
Wu, C.T. and Ip, D.F. (1981) China: rural development-alternating combinations of top-down and
bottom-up strategies, In: Development,fiom Above or Below?(W.B. StBhr and D.R.F. Taylor, eds).
Wiley, Chichester, Chapter 6.
York-Smith. M. (1983) Personal communication.
Zimbalist, A. (1981) On the role of management in socialist development, WorllDevelopnz~n/. 9, 971-78.

Rural Regional Planning - Conyers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rural Regional Planning - Conyers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rural Regional Planning:

Towards an Operational Theory

Centre for Development Studies, University College of Swansea, Singleton Park,

1. The Role of Regional Planning in Rural Development 5

2. Regional Planning: An Overview 14

3. Towards a Theory of Rural Regional Planning 41

3.2.3. Intra-regional or inter-regionalplanning 44

The Role of Regional Planning in Rural Development

This monograph is concerned with the contribution of regional planning to rural

regions (intra-regional planning) and planning between regions (inter-regional

1.2. THE CASE FOR A REGIONAL APPROACH TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Although concern with rural development is no longer a new phenomenon in

1.2.1. Regional Planning as a means of Implementing National Plans

In the early days of development planning, attention tended to be focused on macro-

planning and management techniques. Gradually, however, the role of regional

1.2.2. Regional Planning as a means of Facilitating Participation

What then is the role of regional planning in relation to participation? Regional

1.2.3. Regional Planning as a means of Coordinating Sectoral Activities

1.2.4. The Role of Regional Planning in Reducing Inequalities

1.3. THE ROLE OF THE STATE IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT

The definition of development planning introduced at the beginning of the chapter

Regional Planning: An Overview

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of past approaches to regional

2.2. HISTORICAL ORIGINS AND DIMENSIONS

2.2.1. ConventionalApproaches to RegionalPlanning

‘Conventional’ approaches, as explained above, are those which are generally

Regional Economic Planning

Regional Disaggregation of National Plans

Regional Land-Use Planning

Natural Resource Planning

perspective) should be planned as a whole. Secondly, there are usually a number of

2.2.2. Unconventional Approaches to Regional Planning

This section describes three approaches which, because of terminological confusion

Integrated Rural Development Planning

Regional Administrative Planning

changing needs or conditions on an ad hoc basis. Regional administrative planning thus

2.3. REGIONAL PLANNING AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

The brief overview of different approaches to regional planning in the previous

1. from which planning profession the approach has emerged;

1. to improve the implementation of national plans;

Objectives of Type of Regional Type of Organization of the planning process

1. Implementation All Both Rural Both Admin. Hierarchy Ali Both

Approach to Type of Regional Type of Organization of the planning process

2.3.1. Planning Profession

The description of different approaches to regional planning in the previous section

2.3.2. Regional Development or Regional Planning

means of achieving popular participation), the process of planning is likely to be more

2.3.3. Types of Development Policies

Regional development covers an enormous range of development issues; in fact,

extension on a nationwide basis. However, it is sometimes practised in rural areas,

2.3.4, r~tra-re~~~na~ or fnter-reghal Planning

2.3.5. Type of Region

Administrative Regions OYPlanning Regions

establish a separate administrative structure, organized in a coordinated manner, within

23.6. ~eg~offal Coverage

Another important way of classifying different approaches to regional planning is to

problems or potential - regions in which new industrial and urban development is to be

2.3.7. Planning for Regions or by Regions

2.4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Approach to regional Concern with Contribution to

at this point. Table 3, which is in effect a combination of Tables 1 and 2, attempts to

To wards a Theory of Rural Regional Planning

3.2. BASIC ISSUES IN RURAL REGIONAL PLANNING