You are on page 1of 89

A More Strategic and Participatory

Approach
for Rural Development
(Round Table Discussion
Proceedings)

February 14 (Monday), 2011


Under the Human Resource Development
Scholarship (J DS) Program of J apan




Edited by
Koichi MIYOSHI
Cindy Lyn BANYAI
Yumiko OKABE




Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies
1-1 J umonji-baru, Beppu Oita, 8748577, J apan
Preface

The Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (APU) Graduate School of Asia Pacific
Studies organized a one-day roundtable workshop on rural development titled A More
Strategic and Participatory Approach for Rural Development, in February 2011. The
objective of the roundtable was to help enrich the studies of the J apanese Grant Aid for
Human Resource Development Scholarship (J DS) recipients of APU. The roundtable is
intended to explore issues and tools to improve rural development policy, as well as to
provide a forum for expression and discussion for participants. The workshop brought
academics and practitioners from the fields of evaluation and development to give
presentations and facilitate group discussions on the topic.
This publication is the compilation of results of the roundtable including papers,
presentation and other information from the roundtable. I appreciate the efforts of the
presenters and participants, and staff of the APU Academic Office for making this
roundtable fruitful and informative.
I hope that this volume of publication will contribute to further development of
discussions on rural development, as well as conceptualization and understanding for
more effective practice.


March, 2011


Dr. Koichi Miyoshi, Professor
Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University

Table of Contents

Preface -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

Table of Contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

A Roundtable Discussion on Rural Development ------------------------------------------------------------------3
Cindy Lyn BANYAI, Executive Director, Refocus Institute
Yumiko OKABE, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University

An Alternative Approach for Rural People: Proposal for Rural Development for Laos --------------8
MIYOSHI Koichi, Professor, Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies,
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University

Strategic Approach to Rural Development - Is the Mobilization of Local Resources an Effective
Solution? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------35
HAYASHI Kaoru, Professor, Graduate School of International Cooperation,
Bunkyo University

Development of Rural Town (Growth Center) as a Measure to Integrate Rural and Urban Areas
into a Functional Region - A Strategic Approach for Rural Development -----------------------------------
Emil Elestianto DARDAK, Development Specialist, the World Bank Office, J akarta

Role of Participatory Evaluation in Local Governance ------------------------------------------------------------
MINAMOTO Yuriko, Professor, Graduate School of Governance Studies,
Meiji University

Participatory Evaluation for Rural Development Management -----------------------------------------------
Cindy Lyn BANYAI, Executive Director, Refocus Institute

Photos --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schedule -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Participants --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1

A Roundtable Discussion on Rural Development

Cindy Lyn BANYAI
Executive Director, Refocus Institute

Yumiko OKABE
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University

Abstract
To help enrich the studies of the J apanese Grant Aid for Human Resource Development
Scholarship (J DS) recipients of Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (APU) a one-day
roundtable workshop on rural development was convened in February 2011. The workshop
brought academics and practitioners from the fields of evaluation and development to give
presentations and facilitate group discussions on the topic. The aim of the roundtable was to
explore issues and tools to improve rural development policy, as well as to provide a forum for
expression and discussion for the participants.

Key words
Community, community capacity, community development, economic development, evaluation,
governance, local governance, participation, participatory evaluation, resources, rural
development

Roundtable introduction

J apanese Grant Aid for Human Resource Development Scholarships (J DS), sponsored by
the J apanese government, are provided to government officials from various developing
countries to come to J apan to pursue their graduate studies. As of 2011, there are about 20 J DS
studying at Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (APU) in Beppu, Oita. These students hail from
countries such as Tajikistan, Cambodia, China, Bangladesh, Uganda, Afghanistan, Cameroon,
and Vietnam.
Rural development is an important issue in many developing countries and participatory
evaluation is a tool that can help better shape policy. To help enrich the studies of the J DS
students at APU a one-day roundtable workshop on participatory evaluation and rural
development was convened in February 2011. The roundtable included presentations from
academics and development practitioners on the themes of Strategic Approaches for Rural
Development and The Role of Participatory Evaluation for Rural Development. Each
presentation was followed by a brief question and discussion time.
After all of the presentations were complete, the participants were asked to write on large
sticky notes some questions, topics, and issues that interested them in response to the
presentations. These papers were posted on the wall and volunteers were asked to help break
them down thematically into groups. The groups that emerged were on the basic themes of
community capacity and participation, local governance, and economic initiatives.
2

Participants who were interested in a certain area were then asked to join that group and
contribute to a discussion on the topic, offer potential research questions, flesh out the issue, and
provide brief answers to some of the questions. The groups used the sticky notes again to
capture their ideas, and connect and categorize them further. Upon coming to some basic
conclusions on direction, theme, and questions, groups then collaborated to produce a slide
presentation.
Each group presented their work and facilitated a discussion on the issues they presented.
While the groups presented, a facilitator graphically recorded their presentation on a white board
to help convey the message visually to the group. The roundtable then finished after some final
thoughts from the presenters and participants.

Expert Presentations

Koichi Miyoshi
The workshop began with a presentation from APU professor, Koichi Miyoshi. Professor
Miyoshis presentation focused on a proposed project for rural development in Laos. The
projects framework is based on the J ICA sponsored trainings based on the One Village, One
Project (OVOP) and Onpaku that have been conducted at APU since 2006.
First, Professor Miyoshi introduced the case of Oyama in Oita Prefecture, as a good
example of endogenous development that resulted in community capacity building and becoming
the model for OVOP. Next, he introduced the Onpaku events of Beppu as a way to collectively
market and risk-share local product development. These cases are described using the Miyoshi-
Stenning dual model depicting community capacity building and policy structure. Both
approaches are also described through the roles that need to be taken by the policy level, the
implementation level, and the producer level.
A training schematic based on the OVOP and Onpaku trainings is then presented. These
trainings combine classroom lectures and group discussions, with field study visits, and action
plan preparation. Professor Miyoshi then combines the theoretical approaches and the training
outline to discuss how they can practically applied in a rural development program, as he is
proposing to do in Laos.
Following the presentation, some students had questions and comments. An African
student emphasized the financial aspect of development and Professor Miyoshi emphasized the
importance of reallocating budgets in local government in order to re-examine an existing policy
structure. Another student made comments based on his J DS trip experience in Oyama about
how he admired that even the smallest government level can have capacity to manage their
finances.

Kaoru Hayashi
Professor Hayashi of Bunkyo University presented on Strategic Approach to Rural
Development Is Mobilization of Local Resource an effective solution? Professor Hayashis
3

aim was to look at the effectiveness of local resource driven development initiatives in terms of
their return on levels of self-sufficiency, overall costs, and levels of production. He first
introduced development models from J apan, such as OVOP, road side stations, and agro-based
local businesses.
Professor Hayashi focused most of his presentation on the cases of Umaji and Kamikatsu,
two J apanese that are locally famous for their rural revitalization efforts based on the utilization
of easily obtainable natural resources found in their areas. Ultimately, he concluded that the
impact of local resource based development is not clear and there are limited effects on the fiscal
consolidation of local government.
Professor Hayashi took a different approach than that of Professor Miyoshi, focusing on
quantitative interpretations of policy effectiveness. Although their conclusions on the lessons
from the J apanese case studies are more or less the same they should be viewed as movements,
not programs and must be contextualized.

Emil Elestianto Dardak
The last presentation of the morning session of the rural development roundtable was
given by Emil Elestianto Dardak, a development specialist and Executive Vice President of
Indonesia Infrastructure Guarantee Fund. Dr. Dardaks presentation focused on a strategic
approach to rural development through regional consideration. He emphasized the necessary
relationship between rural and urban areas in terms of infrastructure, food security, and markets.
Dr. Dardak took as spatial-relational approach to rural development and spoke on the importance
of integrated rural-urban planning and the fortification of what he described as rural-towns.
In the discussion following Dr. Dardaks presentation many reiterated the importance of
the central government role as the financial supporter of rural areas, especially in implementing
projects. While others were concerned about dependency that such an arrangement created. The
discussion went to the issue of decentralization, exploring the extent to which each participants
country had been decentralized. The conversation concluded with the agreement that strong
partnerships between the three key players of the local government, central government and
community are necessary to fill the gaps between them. Moreover, strong participation from
local people and the central government was deemed vital.

Yuriko Minamoto
Professor Minamoto of Meiji University led off the afternoon presentations for the
workshop with her presentation on the role of participatory evaluation in local governance. She
spoke extensively about her experience conducting participatory evaluation on public health
programs in Shinagawa City, Tokyo. Professor Minamoto described the process of participatory
evaluation and the outcomes in terms of organizational and leadership development.
When asked about her reflections on her presentation and the subsequent group discussions,
Professor Minamoto said that she thought it was important for the J DS students to learn about
J apanese examples of rural development. Furthermore, she said that from the roundtable she
4

personally gained information about the development and evaluation activities around Kyoto,
where she will soon be conducting another participatory evaluation.

Cindy Lyn Banyai
Cindy Lyn Banyai is an evaluation specialist and Executive Director of the Refocus
Institute consultancy. Dr. Banyai was the last of the expert presentations of the roundtable and
she focused on the relationship between evaluation and
policy management for rural development. In addition
to her practical summary, Dr. Banyai introduced the
idea of using non-traditional media, such as
photography, video and art, in the evaluation process
and data visualization. She also briefly introduced the
idea of graphic recording, where facilitators take notes
on group discussions using visual representations and
pictures to help participants gain a better understanding
of the concepts under discussion.
Many of the roundtable participants were not
familiar with methods of participatory evaluation, let
alone the use of visual media in evaluation. However,
they were interested in this approach so because they are concerned about people not
participating the policy making process in their countries.

Group discussions

Following the expert presentations, the roundtable
participants were asked to brainstorm some questions and
issues that were important to them. They did this by
writing down their ideas on large sticky notes that were
then roughly categorized by topic. The participants then
could choose to follow their question into a discussion on a
related topic or choose another topic of interest to them.
This is how the main groups for the group discussion were
formed.
Three groups were formed along the following
broad categories: capacity and participation, intervention
and infrastructure, and government policy in development.
The participants were then asked the following questions
to guide their group discussion:
Source: Yumiko Okabe
Figure 1: Dr. Banyai demonstrating graphic
recording during group presentation
Figure 2: Capacity and participation group
with Professor Minamoto
Source: Yumiko Okabe
5



Why is it [the topic] important?
What are some interesting questions on this topic?
Reply to questions
The presenters joined in the group discussions to offer
their insights and to listen to the thoughts of the
participants. The discussion was elaborated using the
sticky notes to ensure that all participants had the ability to
join the discussion and have their voice heard. The sticky
notes also allowed for further clarification and
categorization of ideas.
Following the
discussion, each group was asked to prepare a PowerPoint
presentation to share their ideas with the larger group.

Summary

The roundtable discussion on rural development and
participatory evaluation for J DS students at APU in
February 2011 was a success for the participants and
presenters alike. It provided wealth information on topics
that are of importance to J DS scholars and encouraged
discussion and group work to further codify and expand the concepts introduced by the
presenters. Practical and pressing issues such as the real success of development initiatives and
the steps of participatory evaluation were covered. Innovative approaches, such as rural and
urban integration and visual media use in evaluation also provided ample room for discussion
and growth among the participants.
Source: Yumiko Okabe
Figure 3: Intervention and infrastructure
group with Dr. Dardak
Figure 4: Government in development
policy group with Professor Hayashi
Source: Yumiko Okabe
1
AnAlternative Approach for Rural People:
Proposal for Rural Development in Laos
MIYOSHI Koichi
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
miyoshik@apu.ac.jp
1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to briefly present a potential project for rural development for Lao Peoples
Democratic Republic and its guiding framework. The intention of the project is to provide an alternative
development approach focusing on community capacity development that benefits rural communities in Laos.
The approach must be practical, operational and presentational. It is discussed that concepts of rural
development, based on the development of collective activities of the community and community capacity,
and at the same time, will aim to create an environment that allows the utilization of our developed and
accumulated knowledge on rural development as a more strategic approach.
2. Utilization of our developed and accumulated knowledge
We formulate the project by utilizing our developed and accumulated knowledge through execution of our
training programs for developing countries from 2006, as well as our research on experience of rural
development in Oita prefecture and surrounding areas. At Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (APU) we have
organized and conducted Japan International Cooperation Agencys (JICA) group training programs of
technical cooperation for rural promotion and development by inviting over 300 participants from more than
30 countries. In the training programwe utilize the following model, approach and modules;
(1) Community Capacity Development and Policy Structure Model
(2) Decentralized Hands-on Exhibition (Onpaku) approach (DHOExhibition)
(3) Community Focussed One Village, One Product (OVOP) Approach
(4) Training Module for Community Capacity and Rural Development
We will utilize these model, approach and module for creating a strategic rural development approach for
rural people in Laos. The contents of these models, approaches and modules and their nature are elaborated
below.
Community Capacity Development and Policy Structure Model
The Community Capacity Development and Policy Structure Model in Figure 1 illustrates that a community
uses its capacity to plan, implement and evaluate community policy structures. This framework allows
identification, conceptualization and clarification of community processes through the inclusion of program
theory, whilst simultaneously providing a basis for the analysis of community capacity. This model is a dual
function model aiming at developing community capacity, and introducing and implementing a higher value
added and better well-being policy structure, which consists of economic, social, environmental and political
2
Outcomes of
Community
Change of
Society)
Function
Planning
Implementation
Evaluation
Strategic
Component
Human Resources
Leadership
Organization
Network
Intermediate
Outcomes
Change of
Target Group
Outputs
Activities
Inputs
Community
Implementation
Outcomes
Characteristics of Community Capacity
Sense of Community
Commitments
Ability to Set and Achieve Objectives
Ability to Recognize and Access to Resources
Economic
Formal/Market/Informal
Communal/Collective
Individual/Household
Social
Formal/Informal
Communal/Collective
Individual/Household
Environmental
Formal/Informal
Communal/Collective
Individual/Household
Community Capacity
Political
Formal/Informal
Communal/Collective
Individual/Household
activities to change the life of the communitys population. In this context community capacity is defined as
the ability of a community to produce outcomes in society which organizations and individuals produce as the
result of their collective activities by utilizing available resources including human resources, physical, social,
political and organizational resources to them.
The above-mentioned conceptual model depicts the relationship between community capacity
development and change of policy structure consisting of activities such as social, economic, environmental
and political activities in communities. Community capacity consists of the strategic components
(actors/agents), characteristics and functions of each community. The level of community capacity can be
raised by enhancing these components and their mutual interactions, which eventually leads to changes in
policy structures for rural communities composed of economic, social, environmental and political activities.
Improved rural community capacity enables communities to create more complex and advanced policy
structures.
The policy structure section depicts the relationships among economic, social, environmental and political
activities in communities, such as agricultural production and particular development initiatives, that consist of
end outcomes (effects represented as social changes), intermediate outcomes (effects represented as changes in
targeted groups including individuals and organizations), outputs (products and services produced by
activities), activities (series of actions for producing outputs using inputs) and inputs (human resources,
machinery, equipment, facilities, wages, expertise, time, etc.)
In this connection it would be advisable to clarify the definition of community here. This paper treats a
(Source) Miyoshi 2010, Miyoshi &Stenning 2008a, 2008b
Figure 1: The Community Capacity Development and Policy Structure
3
community as a social system consisting of individuals, groups and organizations that share a common and
general sense of belonging in a particular area segmented by administrational boundaries. Yet, considering
community in a broader sense is not accompanied by any significant problems, or rather, by expanding its
definition to include villages, towns, cities, prefectures, provinces, nations and even international societies, it
makes it possible for the analysis to include not only rural residents but also administrative bodies, civil groups,
NGOs, NPOs, private enterprises and educational institutions as constituents of communities. Widening the
range of subjects of analyses also benefits policy-oriented debates (Miyoshi 2010; Miyoshi and Stenning
2008a, 2008b).
Decentralized Hands-on Exhibition (Onpaku) Approach (DHOExhibition Approach)
We view the Decentralized Hands-on (DHO) Exhibition approach as a specific type of community capacity
development and policy structure model. We created the DHO Exhibition Approach based on the observation
and analysis of the experience of Onpaku events including Onpaku in Beppu, Michikusa-Komichi in Soja and
Bonpaku in Miyakonojo. By introducing the concept of the DHO Exhibition we can broaden, modify and
elaborate the scope of Onpaku for a more effective rural development approach. DHO Exhibitions policy
structure is divided into three parts; community-based activities and resources, partners participation, creation
and implementation of DHO Exhibition programs, and collective activities of the DHO Exhibition
implementation organization.
In actual Onpaku, all partners either revise or improve their respective existing community-based
activities or establish new ventures, and are responsible for the formulation and implementation of those
Onpaku programs. A typical program of Onpaku has no more than 10 to 20 participants and 30 to 60
programs are packed into a period of one month. Increasing numbers of programs makes the Onpaku event
more attractive and useful to the public and media.
In the Onpaku in Beppu the number of program exceeds more than 150. These programs are held once
or twice a year. This allows partners to attempt various challenging business activities with little concern for
potential risks. The brochure of programs provides a list of potential products and services utilizing local
resources. This comes as the result of a participatory feasibility study by local people.
While the consequences of failure are small, a successful Onpaku experience can elevate motivation
substantially. Moreover, through repetition of the programs, a support and cooperation network is developed.
As a result, core organizations for development are built in the rural areas, community development networks
are created and community capacity is developed. Onpaku is able to achieve rapid results in community and
rural development because each program is planned and developed principally based on the pre-existing
activities in the community and rural area.
We recognized that there are three major factors that lead to Onpaku attracting attention as a rural
development strategy. Onpaku programs are small-scale, short and repetitive. This situation in turn then
triggers ongoing success for the programs. Furthermore, the repeated implementation of individual programs
provides opportunities for partners to test market services and goods and to create business models that enable
customer acquisition and local resource utilization as a community. In this way, Onpaku increases motivation
in small and mediumenterprises and small-scale agricultural producers.
The introduction and implementation of DHO Exhibition Approach as policy is easy to understand in
4
terms of three distinct levels: (1) the policy formulation organization level; (2) the implementation
organization level; and (3) the program partner level (Figure 1). The organizations responsible for each level
implement their respective roles when implementing DHO Exhibition programs in local communities (Figure
3). The role of Onpaku policy formulation organization consists of selecting and supporting the DHO
Exhibition implementation organizations. The DHOExhibition implementation organization builds the DHO
Implementation
Organization Level
(DHOExhibition)
Program Partner
Level
(Production
Group)
Policy Making Level
Central Government
Provincial Government
DHOExhibition (Onpaku) Policy-
Making Organization
DHO Exhibition (Onpaku)
Implementation Organization
ProgramPartner
DHO Exhibition (Onpaku) I
mplementation Organization
ProgramPartner
DHO Exhibition (Onpaku)
Implementation Organization
ProgramPartner
DHO Exhibition (Onpaku)
Implementation Organization
ProgramPartner
DHO Exhibition (Onpaku)
Implementation Organization
ProgramPartner
Implementation
Organization Level
(DHOExhibition)
ProgramPartner
Level
Policy Level
DHO Exhibition (Onpaku)
Policy-Making Organization
DHOExhibition (Onpaku) Implementation
Organization
Program Partner
Formulation of DHO Exhibition
(Onpaku) Approach Policy
Provisionof DHO Exhibition
(Onpaku) Approach Guidelines
Human Resource Development
Training for Implementation
Organizations
Fund Raising/ Financial Support
Hands-on Management Support
Hands-on Planning Support
including Brochure Publication
WebsiteLaunchSupport
ReservationSystemProvision
and Development
Policy, Programand Project
Evaluation
Spreadof DHO Exhibition
(Onpaku) Approach
Fund Raising
Explanatory Meeting with
Potential ProgramPartners
ProgramPlanning
Consultationwith Partner/
ProgramPlanning Support
Holding Partner Meeting
Brochure Publication
WebsiteLaunch
Media Release
ReservationManagement
FanClub Management
Total Coordination
ProgramImplementation/
Support
Programand Project
Evaluation
Local Activities/Businesses
which ProgramPartners
Usually Implement
ProgramPlanning
Applying Programto the
Secretariat
WritingProgramProposal for
Brochure
Consultationwith Secretariat
Attendance to Program
Partner Meeting
ProgramImplementation
Figure 2: DHOExhibition (Onpaku) Approach Model
(Source) Prepared by author
Figure 3: DHOExhibition (Onpaku) Approach Model
(Source) Prepared by author
5
Exhibition framework and supports the program partners planning and implementation. At the program
partner level, the programs are planned and implemented. Avital point here is that each support mode can be
standardized and as a result, DHO Exhibition implementation can be held within relatively short period
(Miyoshi and Ishimaru 2010, Ishimaru andMiyoshi 2010).
One Village, One Product (OVOP) Approach
We also view the Community Focused One Village, One Product (OVOP) Approach as a specific type of
community capacity development and policy structure model. Our conceptualization of the Community
Focused One Village, One Product (OVOP) Approach heavily depends on the rural development experience
of Oyama in Oita prefecture in Japan. Before the introduction of the OVOP movement by Oita prefecture,
Oyama already achieved high levels of community capacity development, which is one of the reasons the
town became a source of inspiration for former Governor Hiramatsu when he first formulated the OVOP
movement. We recognize the framework of Community Focused OVOP Approach in the rural development
experience of the Oyama.
We observe that there is a distinction between the original models of the OVOP movement in Oyama,
Yufuin and Himejima, and the OVOP movement introduced by former Governor Hiramatsu. The original
model and activities of Oyama-town are more community oriented while the latter OVOP movement became
more production oriented. We see the original nature of the OVOP model in the development of the hot spring
resorts of Kurokawa and Onpaku in Beppu. This is the reason we include the development of Kurokawa and
Onpaku in Beppu in our case study of the training program.
In rural regions, farmers and others aim to expand their businesses, creating winners and losers; as a
result, some farmers and families who lost confidence in their ability to manage agricultural businesses would,
out of financial need, move to urban areas to seek jobs. With the decline of residents and farmhouses in the
rural community, social functions of offices and branches of administrative institutions, elementary and middle
schools, clinics, hospitals and healthcare centers, branches of post offices and financial institutions, retail stores
and restaurants will all likely diminish.
Oyama has taken a different approach. They avoided making losers by not emphasizing outstanding
successes. The number of farmhouses is almost same as 50 years ago even though the population has
decreased. The average farmhouse and land is about half a hectare. In order to avoid losers, Oyama pursued
multi-dimensional agriculture and promoted not only primary agricultural production, but also the processing
and marketing their products. They promoted high value added economic activities on their limited farm land
by introducing various collective activities that increased the productivity of each farmhouse.
The Oyama community was established by the administrative zoning, and within this zone, the members
of Oyama recognized their commonality and their belonging through their daily shared topics of conversation,
awareness of the area, and lives within the area. In Oyama, the main actors of the community were the town
government, the agricultural cooperatives and their related organizations, with the farmers mainly engaging in
agricultural production and processing.
Community capacity development and rural development in Oyama was initiated and led by the town
government and the agricultural cooperative. These two organizations acted as implementing organizations of
community capacity and rural development as described in the towns development history, the NPC
6
movement. The community can be viewed as an operable body, placing it at the core of the development
approach as an operational and practical development subject. It is important to clearly identify the boundaries
and scope of the community based on the structure and changes of community members.
Oyama is relatively well known for a series of successful endogenous development initiatives since
1960s, the innovative New Plum and Chestnut (NPC I) movement and the catchy slogan Ume, kuri wo uete,
Hawaii ni ikou! (Lets plant plums and chestnuts and go to Hawaii!). Through drastic agricultural reform,
whereby rice paddies were turned into orchards, rearing livestock was banned and farmers were encouraged to
work less and play and learn more, the town went from having tired thatched roofs, humble earth walls, no
money and an unusually strong level of social jealousy to being a wealthy, culturally rich, harmonious and
contented farming village. The story of this success in itself is inspirational to any person striving for
development in disadvantaged rural communities.
Following the NPC I movement, Oyama initiated two other movement, namely the NPC II and the NPC
III. The Neo Personality Combination campaign (NPC II) was added parallel and simultaneously to the
existing NPC I. NPC II focused on manabu (learning). Under this program the Oyama administration
established a learning program of community centre activities called Seikatsu Gakkou whereby local residents
ran cultural learning classes such as tea ceremonies, martial arts, or kimono wearing. Prominent professionals
were also invited to give lectures. Events, such as classical music concerts, were also planned for residents to
participate in and cooperate together in order to refine their personalities. Furthermore, residents were
encouraged to take tours around Japan and networks were consolidated for exchange activities overseas to
study agricultural and community development techniques (for elementary and secondary students to U.S.A.
and Korea, for farming youth to a kibbutz in Israel, and for adults to China). Scholarships were also provided
for young people who were expected to become involved in agriculture in the community.
The next addition to the community responded to this phenomenon. The New Paradise Community
(NPC III) centerd on aishiau (love) and aims for a more enjoyable and affluent living environment for the
residents of Oyama. The campaign sought to construct the perfect environment for living in order to retain
residents, particularly young people, who were moving away due to lack of entertainment, amusement and
cultural facilities. Under this campaign program, Oyama was divided into eight cultural zones with one
cultural centre in each.
Looking at the past, the turning point for members in the community was in 1949 when the Oyama
Agricultural Cooperative was established and became a core member of the community. Oyama community
activities became increasingly sophisticated when the agricultural cooperative established organizations such
as the agricultural produce processing center, enoki mushroom mycelium center, enoki mushroom branch
plant, and Konohana Garden direct-sales shop and organic restaurant as part of its operation. These
organizations became important members and actors in the community for conducting multi-dimensional
activities. Also, the local administration established Oyama Cable Broadcasting, Oyama Cable TV, and the
Oyama Lifestyle Consulate in Fukuoka, and expanded the community activities by having these organizations
become community actors as well. The town administration led the establishment of private organizations
such as the Bungo/Oyama Hibikinosato and the Roadside Station Mizubenosato Oyama. The community
further added other actors such as the community center, which is the base of regional activities, farmproducer
groups, and softball teams.
7
Community becomes more explicit through mutual interactions between the inside and outside players.
With Oyama, their community became clearer with the involvement of Oita Prefecture and the Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). Opposing the agricultural policy of the time, the NPCMovement
sought to switch from rice cultivation to plums and chestnuts, and Oita Prefecture and MAFF responded with
a chilly attitude. Through such mutual interaction, Oyama adopted a strong awareness of their position as a
community. However, as the NPC I began bearing fruit, the attitudes of Oita Prefecture and MAFF became
friendlier, and they gradually transformed into actively supportive organizations. The Oita Prefectural
Governor Hiramatsu developed the One Village One Product movement and publicized the case of Oyama as
a model example. This greatly changed the relationship between Oyama and Oita Prefecture.
Oyama also engaged with many external actors. They did this through the municipalities where
trainings were held, the places they visited on study tours, and the participating regions for social events. The
Junior Training Program at the kibbutz in Israel, Oyama and Megiddo became sister cities. Additionally, the
European trainings conducted concurrently with the Israel training helped people compare the status of Oyama
with each of the cities visited. Megiddo, especially, gave the people of Oyama a model on how to develop
under difficult conditions. The Oyama Lifestyle Consulate in Fukuoka City helps to create opportunities for
interactions with urban areas.
The implementation of the OVOP Approach as policy has a similar context as the DHO Exhibition
Approach. It includes (1) the policy formulation organization level, (2) the implementation organization level,
and (3) the program partner level. The organizations responsible for each level implement their respective
roles when implementing the OVOP Approach in local communities (Figure 4). The role of OVOP policy
formulation organization consists of selecting and supporting the OVOP implementation organizations. The
OVOPApproach implementation organization builds the OVOPframework and supports the famers, small
Community/
Implementation
Organization Level
OVOP)
Producer Level
Production Group
Policy Level
Central Government
Provincial Government
OVOP Policy-Making Organization
OVOPImplementation Organization
Collective Activities
Individual Activities
OVOP Implementation Organization
Collective Activities
Individual Activities
OVOP Implementation Organization
Collective Activities
Individual Activities
Figure 4: Community Focused OVOPApproach Model
(Source) Prepared by author
8
Community/
Implementation
Organization Level
OVOP)
Producer Level
Policy Level
OVOP Policy-Making
Organization
OVOP Implementation
Organization
Small Farmers/
Industries
Formulation of
OVOPApproach
Policy
Provision of OVOP
Approach Guidelines
Training of OVOP
Implementation
Organizations
Leadership Training
Marketing Support
Technical support
Financial support.
Community Capacity
Development /HRD
Creation and
Maintenance of Collective
activities
Knowledge Sharing
Marketing Support
/Direct Sales
Facilities/Antenna
Shops/HP Management
Technical Support/ Group
of Producers
Financial support/ Micro
Finance
Producers: Existing
or Potential
Resources: Existing
or Potential
Internal or External
Multi-Dimensional
Agriculture and
industry
producers and service providers planning and implementation. At the program producers and service provider
level, the higher value added activities are planned and implemented (Figure 5). A vital point here is the
definition of the community for the OVOP movement and the role of the OVOPimplementation organizations
as observed in the Oyama NPC. In the actual OVOPmovement in Oita prefecture the definition of and the role
of the OVOP implementation organizations is not outlined and conceptualized clearly. Direct
intervention by the Oita prefecture government leads to a distinction between the original model of
OVOP movement in Oyama and the OVOP movement as introduced by former Governor Hiramatsu
(Miyoshi 2010; Miyoshi and Stenning 2008a, 2008b).
Training Module for Rural Development
Lack of development and persistently lowlevels of quality of life are characteristics of rural communities
throughout the developing world. The valuable historical lessons of successful community development
initiatives in communities like Oyama and the know-how of those who have been involved in these initiatives
are extremely valuable resources that should be harnessed in the effort to assist those rural communities
around the world that are still struggling to better themselves. It is with this intention that group training
programs in rural development and community capacity have been conducted in cooperation with the Japan
International CooperationAgency at RitsumeikanAsia Pacific University
Many of these group training programs have been conducted under the rubric of the OVOP movement.
Some of the programs conducted at APU have included the Area-Focused Training Course in Community
Capacity and Rural Development for Asian Countries: Focusing on One Village One Product from 2007,
Community Capacity and Rural Development for African Countries -Focusing on One Village One Product
from 2007, Andean Region One Village One Product Promotion from 2009, the Philippines Local
Figure 5: Community Focused OVOPApproach Model
(Source) Prepared by author
9
Administration Cluster Revitalization Seminar between 2007 and 2010, as well as the Technical
Cooperation Project for The Enforcement of Regional Administrative Function for Local Industrial Promotion
in The Republic of Chile between 2008 and 2010, Country-focused Training Course on the One Village
One Product Movement in Savannakehet and Saravana, Laos between 2008-2009. A training program
focusing the Onpaku Approach including Development and Promotion of Regional Industries utilizing Local
Resources for Asia (1) and Development and Promotion of Regional Industries utilizing Local Resources
for Asia (2) in 2009 has also been organized.
The training programs are organized generally with the goals of (1) enhancing the understanding of the
concepts of community capacity and rural development; planning and evaluation, the OVOP Approach Model,
and the DHO Exhibition Approach Model; (2) enhancing the understanding of practical systems and the
approach for community capacity and rural development based on cases from Oita Prefecture including the
OVOP Movement and Onpaku through study tours such as Oyama Agricultural Cooperative, Oyama
Regional Development Bureau, Kurokawa Onsen Beppu Hatto Onpaku, Miyakono-jo Bonpaku, Soja
Michikusa-komichi, Himejima, and group discussion on case studies; and (3) analyzing rural development
based on community capacity development, and formulating action plans for rural development plans based
on the OVOP movement and community capacity development resulting from group discussions on
participant cases.
The programs consist of a combination of lectures and discussions at APU and study tours with
on-the-spot lectures by community members outside the campus. In the training sessions, emphasis is placed
on deepening understanding of the concepts of community capacity development and rural promotion based
on observations from the study tours and interpretation of the concepts in light of the observations. Moreover,
program participants are provided opportunities to practice developing specific plans for a project through
group discussions based on their newfound understanding (Figure 6).
Inception Report/Idea
Project, Program and Policy
InterimReport
Project, Programand Policy
1. Concept of Community Capacity
Development
2. Concept of Planning and
Evaluation
3. DHO Exhibition (Onpaku)
Approach Model
4. Study Tours
5. Case Studies
6. Group Discussions
Revision and
Modification
Final Report
Project, Programand Policy
Conceptual Framework: Theory
+
Practice
Implementation
Project, Programand Policy
Figure 6: Concept of Training for Rural Development
(Source) Prepared by author
10
The crux of the programs is how to embody ideas for rural development in practice. The programs are
designed to offer practical knowledge by reciprocally linking ideas and practice throughout the duration of the
program. Emphasis is placed on repeating discussions to facilitate program participants understanding of the
community development concepts and planning and evaluation methods by connecting them to practices
undertaken by the rural communities studied. This enables participants to utilize this knowledge for planning,
implementing and evaluating their own policies, programs and projects (Miyoshi and Stenning 2008c;
Stenning and Miyoshi 2009).
3. Proposal for Rural Development in Laos
Background and Necessity of the Proposed Project
The Laotian government is placing importance on rural development by promoting comprehensive growth
and the reduction of poverty through the National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy (NGPES). To
accomplish this, it is working to form production groups in rural communities. However, these
production-oriented activities and groups have not had enough of an effect on the communities.
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (APU) has been making efforts to implement a Rural Development
Approach through Community Capacity Development in Laos through JICA training programs. This
approach is based on Japans experience with rural development, and uses the Onpaku and OVOP Approach
as methods for rural development. In 2010, follow-ups to earlier training programs were conducted, which
paved the way for a rural development approach to be introduced in Laos.
This project will support the formation of organizational structures and implementation of initiatives,
thereby contributing to the development of rural communities.
Strategic Approach for Rural Development
Figure 7 illustrates the basic idea for using the DHO Exhibition and Community Focused OVOP
approach. The strength of DHO Exhibition Approach is the recognition of local resources and marketing of
potential product and services. The results of the DHO Exhibition encourage the promotion of the OVOP
movement.; it is a circular process. Through this circular process the communities of Laos will be able to
develop their community capacity and a higher value added and better well-being policy structure.
The Brief Outline of the Proposed Project
Figure 8 illustrates the framework of the proposed project and Table 1 elaborates the roles of policy
organization, implementation organization, and producers and service providers. The project purpose is to
assist local governments with the formation of organizational structures and the implementation of initiatives
for rural development. This will help producers and service providers improve their lives and build their
confidence.
The title of the project is Rural Development Project through Community Capacity Development
(RDCCD Project). The target area is rural communities in eight provinces including Khammouan,
Bolikhamxai and Bokeo. The target group is producers and service providers (groups) in targeted rural
communities.
11
DHO Exhibition (ONPAKU ) Program OVOPProgram
1
st
year Formulation of DHO Exhibition (Onpaku)
policy
Formulation of OVOP policy
Selection of implementation organization Selection of implementation organization
2
nd
year Preparation of 1
st
DHO Exhibition (Onpaku)
Implementation of 1
st
DHO Exhibition
(Onpaku)
Selection of potential product or services for
OVOP
Technical, financial, marketing supports
Evaluation
3
rd
year Preparation of 2
nd
DHO Exhibition (Onpaku)
Implementation of 2
nd
DHO Exhibition
(Onpaku)
Selection of potential product or services for
OVOP
Technical, financial, marketing supports
Evaluation
the Laos Ministry of Industry
and Commerces
Economic Research Institute for
Trade (Task Force)
Collaborative Support
Activities
Support fro
Centralized/Decentralized
Hands-onExhibition
Technical support for
selectedproducts and
services
Supports for market place
creation fro products and
services
Support for knowledge
sharing systemon
development experiences

Project Collaborative
Office
Policy Making
Organization Level
Support Activitiesby
this Project

Regional Community
(Implementation OrganizationLevel
Rural Development Activities bythe
support of this project)
Rural Community
Implementation Organization
Local Government, NPO, CBO
etc.
Executionof
Centralized/DecentralizedHands-
onExhibition
Technical support for selected
products andservices
Market place creationand
management for products and
services
Knowledge sharing systemon
development experiences
Famers
Agro processors
Fruit processor s
Bamboo craft makers
Silk producer group
Sewing groups
Eco-tourismprovider
Producer/Service
Provider Level
(Participation inRural
Development
Activities of this
Project and its
Outcomes)
Rural Community
Implementation Organization
Rural Community
Implementation Organization
Figure 8: the Framework of the Proposed Project
(Source) Prepared by author
Figure 7: More Strategic Approach for Rural Development
(Source) Prepared by author
12
Table 1: Role of Policy Organization, Implementation Organization and Producers and Service Providers
Policy Making Organization Level Implementation Organization Level Producer/Service Provider Level
Collaborative Supporting Activities
(1) Support for
Centralized/Decentralized
Hands-on Exhibition
- Policy making
- Preparation of guidelines for
implementing exhibition
- Selection of implementation
organization
- Execution of training programfor
implementation organization
- Organizational management
support
- Support for individual DHO
exhibition program formulation
- Financial support
- Support for publication of
exhibition brochure
- Support for web-site
management
(2) Technical support for selected
products and services
- Policy making
- Preparation of guidelines for
technical support
- Execution of training programfor
implementation organization
- Recognition of selected products
and services for technical support
- Organizational management
support for technical support
- Financial support
- Support for web-site
management
(3) Supports for market place
creation fro products and
services
- Policy making
- Preparation of guidelines for
support
- Execution of training programfor
implementation organization
- Organizational management
support
- Financial support
- Support for web-site
management
(4) Support for knowledge sharing
systemon development
experiences
- Policy making
- Preparation of guidelines for
knowledge sharing
- Execution of training programfor
implementation organization
- Creation work of explicit
knowledge
- Support for web-site
management
Strengthening of Foundation for
Community Collective Activities
Community Capacity Development
(1) Execution of
Centralized/Decentralized
Hands-on Exhibition
- Participation in training program
for implementation organization
- Confirmation of implementation,
Budget and personnel
- Strengthening of organization
management system
- Execution of training programfor
producer sand service providers
- Identification of individual
DCHOexhibition program
- Individual programdesigning
- Preparation of exhibition
brochure
- Web-site management
- Public relation and advertisement
of exhibition
- Execution of exhibition
- Evaluation and review
(2) Technical support for selected
products and services
- Strengthening of management
systemfor technical support
- Selection of products and services
for technical support
- Execution of training program
for producers and services
providers
- Individual technical support
- Individual management support
- Support for financing
- Web-site management
(3) Market place creation and
management for products and
services
- Participation in training program
for implementation organization
- Strengthening of management
systemfor market place creation
- Execution of training program
for producers and services
providers
- Grouping of producers and
services providers
- Support for financing
- Web-site management
(4) Knowledge sharing systemon
development experiences
- Creation work of explicit
knowledge
- Support for web-site
management
- Organization of study groups
Showing of Originality, Invention
and Continuous Efforts
(1) Participation in
Centralized/Decentralized
Hands-on Exhibition
- Participation in training program
for producer sand service
providers
- Identification of individual DHO
exhibition program
- Individual programdesigning
- Execution of individual program
in DHOexhibition
- Evaluation and review
(2) Efforts for qualitative and
quantitative improvement of
products and services
- Participation in training program
for producer sand service
providers
- Acceptance of individual
technical support
- Acceptance of individual
management support
- Acquisition of financing
(3) Effective Utilization of Market
Place for Products and services
- Continuous shipping of products
- Continuous shipping of services
- Recognition of consumer trend
(4) Knowledge Sharing on
Development Experiences
- Group study
- Efforts for knowledge sharing
(Source) Prepared by author
13
The activities and expected outcomes are as follows:
(1) To assist rural governments with the implementation of the following activities:
DHOactivities utilizing local resources
Offer technical support for select products and services at exhibitions
Build a marketplace for products and services
Build a structure for sharing project experiences
(2) Support the participation of producers and service providers (groups) in the above activities, and
thereby reinforce project activities
(3) Improve the lives of producers and service providers (groups) and build their confidence.
In order to clarify the relationship between the project activities and expected outcomes, Table 2 shows
the policy structure of the proposed project using the programtheory matrix.
The intention of the project is not the creation of entirely new projects. Figure 9 illustrates the position of
the proposed project activities in the community policy structure for rural development. The proposed project
provides an umbrella of supporting activities to the existing activities in the poverty reduction program.
End Outcome Intermediate Outcome
To improve the lives of producers and
service providers (groups) and build
their confidence
To support the participation of producers
and service providers (groups) in the above
activities, and thereby reinforce production
and service activities
To assist rural governments with the
implementation of the following
activities:
Participation in
Centralized/Decentralized Hands-on
Exhibition
Execution of Centralized/Decentralized
Hands-on Exhibition
Support for
Centralized/Decentralized Hands-on
Exhibition
Efforts for qualitative and quantitative
improvement of products and services
Technical support for selected products and
services
Support for Technical support for
selected products and services
Effective Utilization of Market Place
for Products and services
Market place creation and management for
products and services
Support for Effective Utilization of
Market Place for products and
services
Knowledge Sharing on Development
Experiences
Knowledge sharing system on development
experiences
Support for knowledge sharing
system on development experiences
Table 2: Policy Structure of the Proposed Project
(Source) Prepared by author
14
Policy: End Outcome
To improve the lives of
producers and service
providers (groups) and build
their confidence
- Participation in
Centralized/Decentralized
Hands-on Exhibition
- Efforts for qualitative and
quantitative improvement of
products and
- Effective Utilization of
Market Place for Products and
services.
- Knowledge Sharing on
Development Experiences
Program: Intermediate Outcome
Program: Intermediate Outcome
Program: Intermediate Outcome
Project: Output/Activity/Input
Project: Output/Activity/Input
Project: Output/Activity/Input
Program: Intermediate Outcome
- Execution of Centralized/Decentralized
Hands-on Exhibition
- Technical support for selectedproducts
and services
- Market place creation and management for
products andservices
- Knowledge sharing systemon development
experiences
Project: Output/Activity/Input
Support for Centralized/Decentralized Hands-on
Exhibition
Project: Output/Activity/Input
Support for Technical support for selected products and
services
Project: Output/Activity/Input
Support for Effective Utilization of Market Place for
products and services
Project: Output/Activity/Input
Support for knowledge sharing systemon development
experiences
The project duration is three years and six months. The project will potentially begin implementation in
the early part of the fiscal year of 2011. The present estimated cost is 99.6 million yen.
For the implementation of this project the following experts will be dispatched from Japan: Project
Manager, Sub-Project Manager (will also serve as Operational Coordinator), and Technical Specialists. A
collaborative support office will be established in cooperation with the Laos Ministry of Industry and
Commerces Economic Research Institute for Trade. Doing this, along with providing assistance to rural
government institutions involved with community development, will ensure that the activities will continue
after the project has finished.
4. Conclusion
This brief paper aimed to provide readers with a strategic rural development approach based on the kinds
of valuable development experiences that rural communities in Japan have to offer practitioners working for
the development of rural communities in developing countries. The paper briefly describes concepts of
community capacity development and the policy structure model, Decentralized Hands-on Exhibition
(Onpaku) approach (DHO Exhibition), One Village, One Product (OVOP) Approach, and the training module
for rural development, and illustrates the integrated utilization of these concepts, approach and module as a
strategic rural development approach for the proposed project in Laos.
The strength of the DHO Exhibition is the recognition of local resources and marketing of potential
product and services, and the results of DHO Exhibition encourage the promotion of the OVOP movement. In
the OVOP movement technical support for selected products and services, and supports for market place
creation for products and services of community members is emphasized. Knowledge and experience sharing
on rural development experiences is also promoted. The project will become more practical, operational and
Figure 9: Proposed Project in the Policy Structure in Rural Development
(Source) Prepared by author
15
presentational for effective and efficient implementation as it proceeds.
The proposed project has a strong policy oriented nature by elaborating and clarifying the roles of the
policy organization, implementation organization and producers and service providers. The project is
knowledge oriented, and emphasizes the utilization of training programs to make personnel and organizations
understand the contents of policy and the implementation of its core activities. It is hoped that this paper might
spark some interest in the development experiences of rural Japanese communities and how they can benefit
international development.
References
Ishimaru, Hisano, and Miyoshi, Koichi. 2010. Utilizing Decentralized Hands-on Exhibition for Community
Capacity and Rural Development: The Case of Bonpaku in Miyakonojo City in Japan Beppu:
Unpublished.
Miyoshi, Koichi. 2010. Chiikiryoku (Community Capacity). Kyoto: Koyo Shobo.
Miyoshi, Koichi, and Ishimaru, Hisano. 2010. Local Resources: Using Onpaku Approach for Rural
Development. (translation of Bijon 22 (Vision 22). Toyonaka Institute for Urban Management Institute
Journal 13: 8-13..
Miyoshi, Koichi, and Stenning, Naomi. 2008a. Developing Community Capacity for Rural
Development: An Alternative Approach for Rural People (September). Osaka: Presented at the Asian
Associaiton for Global Studies Research Forum.
Miyoshi, Koichi, and Stenning, Naomi. 2008b. Designing Participatory Evaluation for Community
Capacity Development: A Theory-driven Approach. Japanese Journal of Evaluation Studies 8,
no. 2: 39-53.
Miyoshi, Koichi, and Stenning, Naomi. 2008c. OVOP and Community Capacity Development: A
case of JICAgroup training programs. OVOPPolicy 1: 49-62.
Stenning, Naomi, and Miyoshi, Koichi. 2008. Knowledge and Networking Strategies for
Community Capacity Development in Oyama-Town: An Archetype of the OVOP Movement.,
OVOPPolicy1: 5-20.
Stenning, Naomi, and Miyoshi, Koichi. 2009. Learning from Rural Communities in Japan. Proceedings of
the 20
th
Annual Conference of The Japan Society for International Development: 210-213.
miyoshi koichi 2011/2
1
An Alternative Approach for Rural People:
Proposal for Rural Development for Laos
MIYOSHI Koichi
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
miyoshik@apu.ac.jp
2011/2 miyoshi koichi
Our Intention of the Proposed Project
To provide an alternative development approach
focusing on community capacity development that
benefits rural communities in Laos. The Approach
must be practical, operational and presentational.
The Points of the Proposed Project
Community Capacity Development and Policy
Structure Model
OVOP Approach
Decentralized Hands-on Exhibition (Onpaku)
approach
Training Module for Rural Development
2011/2 2 miyoshi koichi
Activities and Expected Outcomes
To assist rural governments with the implementation of the following
activities:
Holding Decentralized Hands-on Exhibitions(ONPAKU) utilizing
local resources
Offer technical support for select products and services at
exhibitions
Build a marketplace for products and services
Build a structure for sharing project experiences
To Support the participation of producers and service providers
(groups) in the above activities, and thereby reinforce production
and service providing activities
To Improve the lives of producers and service providers (groups)
and build their confidence
2011/2 3 miyoshi koichi
the Laos Ministry of Industry
and Commerces
Economic Research Institute
for Trade (Task Force)
Col l aborati ve Support
Acti vi ti es
Support fro
Centralized/Decentralized
Hands-on Exhibition
Technical support for
selected products and
services
Supports for market place
creation fro products and
services
Support for knowledge
sharing system on
development experiences

Proj ect Col l aborati ve


Offi ce
Pol i cy Maki ng
Organi zati on Level
Support Acti vi ti es by
thi s Proj ect

Regi onal Communi ty


(Impl ementati on Organi zati on Level
Rural Devel opment Acti vi ti es by the
suppor t of thi s proj ect )
Rural Communi ty
Impl ementati on Organizati on
Local Government, NPO, CBO
etc.
Execution of
Centralized/Decentralized Hands-
on Exhi biti on
Technical support for selected
products and services
Market place creation and
management for products and
services
Knowledge sharing s ystem on
development experiences
Famers
Agro processors
Fruit processor s
Bamboo craft makers
Silk producer group
Sewing groups
Eco-tourismprovider
Producer/Service
Provider Level
(Parti ci pati on i n Rural
Devel opment
Acti vi ti es of t hi s
Proj ect and i ts
Outcomes)
Rural Communi ty
Impl ementati on Organizati on
Rural Communi ty
Impl ementati on Organizati on
Proj ect Impl ementati on Framework
2011/2 4 miyoshi koichi
Role of Policy Organizati on, Implementation Organizati on and Producers and Service Provi ders
PolicyMakingOrganizationLevel ImplementationOrganizationLevel Producer/ServiceProvider Level
Collaborative Supporting Activities
Support fro Centralized/Decentralized Hands-on Exhibition
Policy making
Preparationof guidelinesfor implementingexhibition
Selectionof implementationorganization
Executionof trainingprogramfor implementationorganization
Organizational management support
Support froindividual DCHOexhibitionprogramformulation
Financial support
Support forpublicationof exhibitionbrochure
Support for web-sitemanagement
Technical support for selected products and services
Policy making
Preparationof guidelinesfor technical support
Executionof trainingprogramfor implementationorganization
Recognitionof selectedproductsandservicesfrotechnical
support
Organizational management support fortechnical support
Financial support
Support for web-sitemanagement
Supports for market place creation fro products and
services
Policy making
Preparationof guidelinesfor support
Executionof trainingprogramfor implementationorganization
Organizational management support
Financial support
Support for web-sitemanagement
Support for knowledge sharing system on development
experiences
Policy making
Preparationof guidelinesfor knowledgesharing
Executionof trainingprogramfor implementationorganization
Creationworkof explicit knowledge
Support for web-sitemanagement
Strengthening of Foundation for Community Collective Activities
Community Capacity Development
Execution of Centralized/Decentralized Hands-on Exhibition
Participationintrainingprogramfor implementationorganization
Confirmationof implementation, Budget andpersonnel
Strengtheningof organizationmanagement system
Executionof trainingprogramfor producer sandserviceproviders
Identificationof individual DCHOexhibitionprogram
Individual programdesigning
Preparationof exhibitionbrochure
Web-sitemanagement
Publicrelationandadvertisement of exhibition
Executionof exhibition
Evaluationandreview
Technical support for selected products and services
Strengtheningof management systemfor technical support
Selectionof productsandservicesfor technical support
Executionof training programfor producersandservicesproviders
Individual technical support
Individual management support
Support for financing
Web-sitemanagement
Market place creation and management for products and services
Participationintrainingprogramfor implementationorganization
Strengtheningof management systemfor market placecreation
Executionof training programfor producersandservicesproviders
Groupingof producersandservicesproviders
Support for financing
Web-sitemanagement
Knowledge sharing system on development experiences
Creationworkof explicit knowledge
Support for web-sitemanagement
Organizationof study groups
Showing of Originality, Invention
and
Continuous Efforts
Participation in
Centralized/Decentralized Hands-
on Exhibition
Participationintrainingprogram
for producer sandserviceproviders
Identificationof individual DCHO
exhibitionprogram
Individual programdesigning
Executionof individual programin
DCHOexhibition
Evaluationandreview
Efforts for qualitative and
quantitative improvement of
products and services
Participationintrainingprogram
for producer sandserviceproviders
Acceptanceof individual technical
support
Acceptanceof individual
management support
Acquisitionof financing
Effective Utilization of Market
Place for Products and services
Continuousshippingof products
Continuousshippingof services
Recognitionof consumer trend
Knowledge Sharing on
Development Experiences
Groupstudy
Effortsfor knowledgesharing
2011/2 5 miyoshi koichi
PTM for Collaboration Office
EndOutcome Intermediate Outcome
To improve the lives of producers
andservice providers (groups) and
buildtheir confidence
To support the participationof producers
andservice providers (groups) inthe
above activities, andtherebyreinforce
productionand service activities
To assist rural governments with
the implementationof the following
activities:
Participationin
Centralized/DecentralizedHands-on
Exhibition
Executionof Centralized/Decentralized
Hands-onExhibition
Support for
Centralized/DecentralizedHands-
onExhibition
Efforts for qualitative and
quantitative improvement of
products and services
Technical support for selectedproducts
andservices
Support for Technical support for
selectedproducts andservices
Effective Utilizationof Market Place
for Products and services
Market place creationand management
for products and services
Support for Effective Utilization
of MarketPlace for products and
services
Knowledge Sharingon
DevelopmentExperiences
Knowledge sharingsystemon
development experiences
Support for knowledge sharing
systemondevelopment
experiences
2011/2 6 miyoshi koichi
miyoshi koichi 2011/2
The Proj ect i n the Pol i cy Structure for Rural Devel opment
2011/2 7 miyoshi koichi 2011/2 8
Community Capacity Development
and Policy Structure Model
To develop community capacity to implement
higher value added and better well-being
policy structure.
To introduce and implement higher value
added and better well-being policy structure
to change the life of community population.
Dual Function Model
miyoshi koichi
Outcomes of
Community
Changeof
Society)
Function
Planning
Implementation
Evaluation
Strategic
Component
HumanResources
Leadership
Organization
Network
Intermediate
Outcomes
Changeof
Target Group
Outputs
Activities
Inputs
Community
Implementation
Outcomes
Characteristics of Community Capacity
Senseof Community
Commitments
Abilityto Set andAchieveObjectives
Abilityto RecognizeandAccess to Resources
Economic
Formal/Market/Informal
Communal/Collective
Individual/Household
Social
Formal/Informal
Communal/Collective
Individual/Household
Environmental
Formal/Informal
Communal/Collective
Individual/Household
Community Capacity
Political
Formal/Informal
Communal/Collective
Individual/Household
2011/2 9 miyoshi koichi
Level of Community
International Community
Regional Community
State Community
Provincial Community
District/Municipality Community
Village Community
2011/2 10 miyoshi koichi
2011/2 11
Defining Community
The community is a social system constructed by
people
in the specific territorial area, usually confirmed
by administrative boundaries,
in which the members (organizations, groups,
and individuals) recognize themselves and each
other as belonging to the same community.
including private, non-governmental and
governmental organizations
Specific Area +Common Life
miyoshi koichi 2011/2 12
Community Capacity
The ability of a community to produce
outcomes in society which organizations
and individuals produce as the result of
their collective activities by utilizing
available resources to them (human
resources, physical, social and
organizational resources)
miyoshi koichi
miyoshi koichi 2011/2
2011/2 13
Community Policy Structure
Community, group and individual activities :
Collective Activities
Includes production processes, development
initiatives, activities, projects, events etc
May be economic, social, political
Both informal and formal in nature
miyoshi koichi 2011/2 14
Policy Structure (Program Theory Matrix: PTM)
Pol icy
(End
Outcome)
Program
(Intermediate
Outcome)
Proj ect
(Output) (Acti vi ty) (Input)
Pol icy
Change of
Soci ety
-Indictors
Program A
Change of Target
group (A)
-Indicators
Proj ect A-1
Products and
Services of Project
Indi cators
A-1 A-1
A-2 A-2 A-1
Program B
Change of Target
Group (B)
-Indicators
B-1 B-1 B-1
B-2 B-2 B-2
miyoshi koichi
Evaluation, Planning and Policy Structure
Existing Policy Structure
2011/2 15
Evaluation
Planning
Modi fi ed Future Pol i cy Structure
miyoshi koichi 2011/2 16
Framework of Planning and Evaluation
Subject of Planning and Evaluation
Policy Structure/Objective Tree
Policy/Program/Project
PDM (Project Design Matrix)/PTM (Program Theory
Matrix)/Logical Framework
Planning and Evaluation Questions
Measuring Performance: Normative Questions
Examining Implementing ProcessProcess Evaluation
Clarifying Cause-Effect Relationship: Impact Evaluation
(5 Criteria of DAC/OECD)
Methodology/Method/Approach
Economics, Sociology, Business Management etc.
Quantitative, Qualitative analysis
Self, Internal, External Evaluation
Traditional, Participatory Evaluation
miyoshi koichi
Nature of evaluation and planning
Pol i cy
End Outcome
Pr ogr am
Inter medi ate
Outcome
Pr ogr am
Inter medi ate
Outcome
Pr oj ect
Output
l
Acti vi ti es
l
Input
Pr oj ect
Output
l
Acti vi ti es
l
Input
Pr oj ect
output
l
Acti vi ti es
l
Input
Program
Int ermediat e
Out come
Proj ect
Out put
l
Act ivit ies
l
Input
Proj ect
Out put
l
Act ivit ies
l
Input
2011/2 17
Policy
End Outcome
Program
Intermediate
Outcome
Program
Intermediate
Outcome
Project
Output
l
Activities
l
Input
Project
Output
l
Activities
l
Input
Project
Output
l
Activities
l
Input
Project
iutput
l
Activities
l
Input
Policy
End Outcome
Program
Intermediate
Outcome
Program
Intermediate
Outcome
Project
Output
l
Activities
l
Input
Project
Output
l
Activities
l
Input
Project
Output
l
Activities
l
Input
Project
iutput
l
Activities
l
Input
E & P
miyoshi koichi
Planning Approach
The Focal Problem Method
The Objectives Oriented Method
Problem Solving
Appreciative Inquiry
Introduction of Best Practice
Introduction of Social Theory
2011/2 18 miyoshi koichi
miyoshi koichi 2011/2
Approach Model for Rural Development
2011/2 19 miyoshi koichi
Higher Value Added and
Better Well-being Policy Structure
(Collective Activities)
+
Community Capacity
2011/2 20 miyoshi koichi
OVOP and DHO Exhibition (ONPAKU)
OVOP Program ONPAKU Program
1
st
year Formulationof OVOP Policy Formulationof DHO Exhibition(ONPAKU)
Policy
Selectionof Implementation
organization
Selectionof Implementationorganization
2
nd
year Preparationof 1
st
DHO Exhibition(Onpaku)
Selectionof Potential Product or
Services fro OVOP
Implementationof 1
st
DHO Exhibition(Onpaku)
Technical, Financial, Marketing
Supports
Evaluation
3
rd
year Preparationof 2
nd
DHO Exhibition(Onpaku)
Selectionof Potential Product or
Services fro OVOP
Implementationof 2
nd
DHO Exhibition
(Onpaku)
Technical, Financial, Marketing
Supports
Evaluation
2011/2 21 miyoshi koichi 2011/2 22
Policy Structure/Objectives Tree for Rural Development
miyoshi koichi
2011/2 23
Policy Structure/Objectives Tree for Rural Development
miyoshi koichi 2011/2 24
Policy Structure/Objectives Tree for Rural Development
miyoshi koichi
miyoshi koichi 2011/2
2011/2 25
Change of PS and CC
Pol i cy
End Outcome
Program
Intermediate
Outcome
Proj ect
Output
l
Acti vi ti es
l
Input
Pol i cy
End Outcome
Program
Intermediate
Outcome
Proj ect
Output
l
Acti vi ti es
l
Input
Pol i cy
End Outcome
Program
Intermediate
Outcome
Proj ect
Output
l
Acti vi ti es
l
Input
IV II
Pol i cy
End Outcome
Program
Intermediate
Outcome
Proj ect
Output
l
Acti vi ti es
l
Input
Pol i cy
End Outcome
Program
Intermediate
Outcome
Proj ect
Output
l
Acti vi ti es
l
Input
I V III
Low level of Community Capacity High Level of Community Capacity
Towards Higher Value Added and Better Well-being Policy Structure
miyoshi koichi
OVOP Approach
Higher Value Added Policy Structure
(Collective Activities)
+
DHO Exhibition Approach
(DHO Exhibition Program Implementation)
+
Community Capacity
2011/2 26 miyoshi koichi
CCD-PS and DHO Exhibition (Onpaku) Model
Outcomes of
Community
Change of
Society)
Communi ty Capaci ty of DHO Exhi bi ti on (Onpaku)
Function
Strategic
Component
Intermediate
Outcomes
Change of
Target Group
Partners Programs
DHO Exhibition (Onpaku)
Organizations
Collective Activities
Communi ty
Impl ementati on
Outcomes
Characteristics of
Community Capacity
DHO Exhi bi ti on (Onpaku) Program
2011/2 27 K. Miyoshi & H. Ishimaru
Community Based
Activities & Resources
(Ex. OVOP)
miyoshi koichi
DHO Exhibition (Onpaku) Approach Model
2011/2 28 miyoshi koichi
DHO Exhibition (Onpaku) Approach Model
2011/2 29
Formulation of DHO Exhibition
(Onpaku) Approach Policy
Provision of DHO Exhibition
(Onpaku) Approach Guidelines
Human Resource Development
Training for Implementation
Organizations
Fund Raising/ Financial Support
Hands-on Management Support
Hands-on Planning Support
including Brochure Publication
Website Launch Support
Reservation SystemProvision
and Development
Policy, Programand Project
Evaluation
Spread of DHO Exhibition
(Onpaku) Approach
Fund Raising
Explanatory Meeting with
Potential ProgramPartners
ProgramPlanning
Consultation with Partner/
ProgramPlanning Support
Holding Partner Meeting
Brochure Publication
Website Launch
Media Release
Reservation Management
Fan Club Management
Total Coordination
ProgramImplementation/
Support
Programand Project
Evaluation
Local Activities/Businesses
which ProgramPartners
Usually Implement
ProgramPlanning
Applying Programto the
Secretariat
Writing ProgramProposal for
Brochure
Consultation with Secretariat
Attendance to Program
Partner Meeting
ProgramImplementation
miyoshi koichi
Decentralized Hands-on Exhibition
(DHO Exhibition)
(Onpaku) Programs
+
DHO Exhibition (Onpaku)
Implementation Organization
2011/2 30 miyoshi koichi
miyoshi koichi 2011/2
Characteristics of Exhibitions
Central i zed Decentral i zed
Display Centralized and Display
Oriented
Decentralized and Display
Oriented
Hands-on Centralized and Hands-on
Oriented
Decentralized and Hands-on
Oriented
2011/2 31 miyoshi koichi 2011/2 32
Source: Ishimaru2010
miyoshi koichi
DHO Exhibition Approach Model
2011/2 33
HO Exhibition
Program
DHO Exhibition
Implementation
Organization
HO Exhibition
Program
HO Exhibition
Program
HO Exhibition
Program
HO Exhibition
Program
HO Exhibition
Program
HO Exhibition
Program
HO Exhibition
Program
miyoshi koichi
Onpaku Homepage
2011/2 34 miyoshi koichi
35
Experience-based Onpaku Programs
Provide informationon
programdate, price
etc.
Programname and
details
OnpakuPartner that
offers the program
2011/2
miyoshi koichi
List of Programs and Resources
Partners Resources Programs Purposes of
Programs
2011/2 36 miyoshi koichi
miyoshi koichi 2011/2
2011/2 37 miyoshi koichi 2011/2 38 miyoshi koichi
2011/2 39 miyoshi koichi 2011/2 40 miyoshi koichi
2011/2 41 miyoshi koichi
Collective Sales Approach Model
Outcomes of
Community
Change of
Society
Communi ty Capaci ty of Onpaku
Function
Strategic
Component
Intermediate
Outcomes
Change of
Target Group
Small Famers and Industries
High Value Added
Production Activities
(Collective Production Activities)
Collective Sales Activities
Antenna Shops
Communi ty
Impl ementati on
Outcomes
Characteristics of
Community Capacity
OVOP Program
2011/2 42
Collective Sales Activities
Direct Sales Facilities
miyoshi koichi
miyoshi koichi 2011/2
OVOP Approach Model
2011/2 43 miyoshi koichi
OVOP Approach Model
2011/2 44
Formulationof
OVOP Approach
Policy
Provisionof OVOP
ApproachGuidelines
Training of OVOP
Implementation
Organizations
Leadership Training
Marketing Support
Technical support
Financial support.
CommunityCapacity
Development /HRD
Creationand
Maintenance of Collective
activities
Knowledge Sharing
Marketing Support
/DirectSales
Facilities/Antenna
Shops/HP Management
Technical Support/ Group
of Producers
Financial support/ Micro
Finance
Producers: Existing
or Potential
Resources: Existing
or Potential
Internal or External
Multi-Dimensional
Agriculture and
industry
miyoshi koichi
Small Famers and Industries
High Value Added Production Activities
+
Collective Sales Activities
Direct Sales Facilities
Antenna Shops
2011/2 45 miyoshi koichi
Characteristics of Sales Place
Publ i c Market Di rect Sal es Shop
Dependent
Traditional Market
Auction Price
Large Lot
Standardized
Independent
Direct Sales Shop
Free Pricing
Small Lot
Unstandardized
2011/2 46 miyoshi koichi
Direct Sales Facilities/Antenna Shops
2011/2 47
Small Farmers/
Small Industries
Agricultural /Processed
Products
Safe
Reliable
Fresh
Traceable
Own Decision
Price
Volume
Standard
And Etcetera
Revenue
75%-90%
Direct Sales Facilit ies/
Antenna Shops
Operat ion Policy
(Collect ive Activit ies)
Provision of
Market Place
Operat ion Coast
25%-10%
Consumers
Safe
Reliable
Fresh
Sales
100%
miyoshi koichi 2011/2 48 miyoshi koichi
miyoshi koichi 2011/2
2011/2 49 miyoshi koichi 2011/2 50 miyoshi koichi
2011/2 51 miyoshi koichi 2011/2 52 miyoshi koichi
List of Community Collective Activities
Name of
Activities
Division of Labor
Supporting
Organization/
Facilities for
Collective
Activities
Stake
holders
Resources
Collective
Activities
ndividual
Activities
53 2011/2 53 miyoshi koichi 2011/2 54
Strategic Components of Community Capacity
Human resources
Who is the best in -----?
Leadership
Individual Leadership Community Leadership
Organizations
Support Collective Activities
Networks in or related to the community
Know Who >Know How
miyoshi koichi
miyoshi koichi 2011/2
Oyama-Machi Stakeholders
I nsideof
Oyama
Machi
Oyama Yusen
Broadcast
Oyama
Agricultural
Cooper ative
Committeefor
Dam
Constructi on
Oyama
Town
Outsideof
Oyama Machi
Public
Market
Outsideof
Oyama Machi
55 2009/11
Traditi onal
Farmers
2011/2 55 miyoshi koichi
Oyama-Machi Stakeholders
I nsideof
Oyama
Machi
Oyama Yusen
Broadcast
Oyama
Agricultural
Cooper ative
Committeefor
Dam
Constructi on
Ume-boshi
Contest
Enoki
Mushr oom
Producers
Vegetabl e
Producers
Producer
Groups
Young
Farmers
Study Gr oup
Plum
Producers
Ogirihata Green
Tourism
Study Gr oup
Oyama
Town
Konohana
Garten
Oyama Cabl eTV
Co. Ltd.
Oyama Yume
Kobo
Hibiki-no-sato
Vari ous
Study
Groups
Community
Center
Softbal l
Teams
Organic
Restaurants
Roadside
Stati on
Mizube-no-Sato
Oita
Prefecture
Ministryof
Agriculture
I srael
Meki d
Outsideof
Oyama Machi
Fukuoka City
Oyama LifeCounsel in
Fukuoka
Antenna Shops
Public
Market
Customers of
Konohana Garten
Customers:
Consumers
Oyama Dr eamClub
Antenna Shop
Outsideof
Oyama Machi
56 2009/11 2011/2 56 miyoshi koichi
2011/2 57
Development Phases of Oyama-machi
Pre-NPC (Before 1961)
Formulation of the NPC Movements
NPC I (From 1961)New Plum and Chestnuts
NPC II (From 1965)New Paradise Community
NPC III (From 1969)Neo Personality Combination
Post NPC Formulation: New Development
Further Diversification and Promotion of
Agricultural Production(1970s)
Communication with Outside and the New
Directions (1980s-)
miyoshi koichi 2011/2 58
Concept of Training Program
Inception Report/Idea
Proj ect, Program and Pol icy
Interim Report
Proj ect, Program and Poli cy
1. Concept of Community
Capaci ty Development
2. Concept of Pl anning and
Evaluation
3. DHO Exhibition (Onpaku)
Approach Model
4. Study Tours
5. Case Studi es
6. Group Di scussions
Revi si on and
Modi fi cation
Final Report
Proj ect, Program and Poli cy
Conceptual Framework: Theory
+
Practi ce
Implementation
Proj ect, Program and Poli cy
miyoshi koichi
2011/2 59 miyoshi koichi 2011/2 60 miyoshi koichi
miyoshi koichi 2011/2
2011/2 61 miyoshi koichi 2011/2 62 miyoshi koichi
2011/2 63 miyoshi koichi 2011/2 64 miyoshi koichi
2011/2 miyoshi koichi
XoumSonPaku Approach
(A case study of Laos Thongthoi in Xoumson)
Mr. XaySomPhet Norasingh
Lao PDR
Ministry of Industry and Commerce
Economic ResearchInstitute for Trade
Ph: 856 20 2288-5888
Email: xnorasingh@yahoo.com
Community Capacity and Rural Development
Promotion for Asia Countries
65
1

Strategic Approach to Rural Development
- Is the Mobilization of Local Resources an effective solution?
14 February 2011

Kaoru Hayashi
Bunkyo University

1. Introduction

The main research question of this paper is whether the mobilization of local
resources can be regarded as an effective solution for rural development, to be recommended
to developing countries. Many Japanese municipalities and localities using local resource
mobilization for rural development have been referred to as success stories in various
literatures. Amongst them, the stories of Kamikatsu Town in Tokushima Prefecture and Umaji
Village in Kochi Prefecture are very famous and known as a worldwide model of indigenous
development. These arguments are closely related decentralization.
Not only in developed countries but also in developing countries, decentralization
policies are being implemented as a part of administrative and governance reforms. At the
same time, central governments are reducing budgetary transfers to local governments due to
financial constraints. In this context, local resource-based development has become a trendy
topic for development. However, whether it is a feasible or affordable policy for development
is highly questionable. This paper intends to check the reality of the discourse on local
resource-based development. It also tries to get some guidance for managing decentralization
under globalization from the standpoint of Public Financial Management (PFM).

2. Global Trend toward the Mobilization of Local Resources

Behind the development of various discourses on local resource-based development,
we can point out some paradigm shifts in development thoughts. As it is widely recognized
that global target (MDGs) can only be achieved through aggregates of local activities
(convergence of growth-mediated and support-led approaches for development), village
level income generating activities have become one a focal point of development policy, in
place of the previous emphasis on macroeconomic management and structural policy. At the
same time, the new concept of capacity development emerged to address the capacity issues of
the individual, organizational and social levels as a holistic approach to allow developing
countries to solve problems themselves. Capacity development combined with local
ownership and initiative is now regarded as a key to sustainable development. It is important
in the context of indigenous development. All these arguments and paradigm shifts lead to
2

the (re)discovery of the concept of local resources, which are accessible to local people,
provide opportunities and create capacity throughout the process of capturing untapped
potentials.

3. Activities in practice

Activities in the field have already to some extent incorporated the concept of the
mobilization of local resources. For example, PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal) uses
resource maps and diagrams in a participatory workshop to identify resources that villagers
can control. In the Livelihood Approach, promoted by the United Kingdom Department for
International Development (DfID) as an innovative rural development method, the process
starts with the identification of factors available for livelihood strategies, followed by analysis
of preconditions, assumptions and other factors that may influence the strategies. Then,
strategic decisions will be made based on the availability of local resources. Similar processes
can be observed in Self Help Group (SHG) activities, which are widely applied to Japan
International Cooperation Agencys (JICA) environment-focused rural development projects
in India and other countries. The essence of the SHG is local resource-based businesses, such
as agro-industries and traditional cottage industries.
In parallel with the above, many Japanese local communities and municipalities
started chiiki-okoshi (regional development activities in the 1990s. In the 1960s through the
1980s, Japans economic development was characterized by heavy industrialization with huge
inputs of capital and technology. During this period, the central government played a pivotal
role in allocating centrally concentrated resources. However, this strategy was criticized in the
mid 1980s because it undermined local ownership and initiative for well-balanced regional
development. After 1990s, chiiki-okoshi has become one of the key words for development
to counter external interventions and imposition of exogenous development models. It was
used also to counter the deteriorating local economy under the globalization context. The local
resource-based and local people-centered development has become not only an academic topic,
but also a political agenda in Japan. Local resource based development activities have become
a popular topic and the activities of Kamikatsu and Umaji have become famous in Japan,
garnering ample media coverage.

4. Development Models from J apan

As mentioned above, development models that Japanese researchers and aid
practitioners thought of universal value were government directed industrialization or
industrial policy. However, reflecting the paradigm shifts, development based on local
resources has become one of main stream arguments. One Village One Product (OVOP), Road
3

Side Stations and agro-based local business (Kamikatsu, Umaji) are given focus not only in
domestic development, but also international development.
The OVOP concept is already well-known to the world. Various cooperation activities
are now being carried out in many countries. Road Side Stations were first built and put into
operation in 1991 in the fishery town of Abu, Yamaguchi Prefecture and other two
municipalities, as experiments. Twenty years after the experiments, we have already more than
900 stations nationwide. In 2004, Japan Bank for International Cooperation (now JICA) held
a global seminar on Road Side Stations. Almost at the same time, the World Bank issued
guidelines for Road Side Stations and started pilot projects in China, Kenya and some other
countries.
Additionally, agro-based local business in Kamikatsu, Tokushima Prefecture, which
was referred to in the Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics in 2006 co-hosted
by the World Bank and the Government of Japan, has become one of the most famous
Japanese villages. The town is located about forty kilometers from Tokushima City. As a
typical local village in mountainous region, it is facing decreasing and aging population.
Currently, the population is less than 2000 and the average age is 57.9 according to the 2005
National Census.
It has two innovative projects, Irodori and Zero Waste. Every year, 4000 visitors both
inside and outside of Japan visit the town and many foreign trainees are invited to the town
under JICA program. The Irodori or colorful project started in 1981; after the village was hit
by an extreme cold wave that annihilated all the citrus trees in the village, which was their
major source of income. The project was started by Mr. Yokoishi, a junior manager of the
village agricultural cooperative. Maple leaves and other plants and leaves are collected and
sold to the restaurants in Tokyo and Osaka as accessories for luxurious Japanese dishes. The
leaves and plants are very high value added because they adorn expensive food. The project
developed with participation of many by the villagers. Aged people also joined the projects.
Annual sales are more than 250 million Yen every year. Amongst the participating villagers,
there are women above the age of eighty who could earn more than yen 10 million Yen per
year. It is explained by the municipal government that the projects has very positive impacts
on the revitalization of aged villagers, which resulted in a reduction of medical expense. There
are young people who have returned from cities (U-turners) or even those who have
immigrated to the village from cities (I-turners).
Another innovative project is Zero Waste, which aims to reduce, reuse and recycle
100% of waste. They have already stopped burning of waste. Rubbish is recycled as composts.
At the center of the town, there is a waste station, where villagers are requested to follow
thirty four classification of the waste.
Another village that is famous for local resource based development is Umaji of
Kochi Prefecture, some eighty to 100 km west of Kamikatsu. Umaji is less famous than
4

Kamikatsu internationally, but more famous domestically, due to their active promotion of
sales of citrus products, such as drinks and seasonings. The situation in Umaji is quite similar
to that of Kamikatsu. The major difference between the two municipalities is that the total
sales of the products of Umaji is more than 3 billion Yen, which is more than ten times larger
than that of Kamikatsu at 250 million Yen, while the population of Umaji is about two-thirds
of Kamikatsu.

5. Reality Check

The discourses on local resource based development may be listed as follows:
1) Utilization of untapped opportunities,
2) Income generation through use of relatively easy to obtain inputs,
3) Nurturing a sense of ownership for development amongst the villagers,
4) Capacity development of villagers through engagement and participation,
5) Visualizing intangible traditional knowledge and transferring it to the next generation, and
6) Revitalizing community and people.
Putting aside the intangible effects of numbers 3, 4, 5 and 6 above, the questions is
whether their strategy resulted in real economic impact, namely strengthening of the local
economy, and financially consolidating the municipality governments. Additionally, it must
be examined whether it can be called indigenous development, as opposed to external
intervention and support. The difficulty in checking this reality is related to the challenges
associated with impact measurement. There are no counterfactuals to compare. There are no
municipalities not mobilizing their local resources. Kamikatsu and Umaji cannot be compared
as municipalities using local resources effectively while other municipalities are not. However,
it can be said that Kamikatsu and Umaji are very famous while the others are not. The fact that
they are famous can be interpreted as successful penetration of the market. It can be assumed
that successful marketing of local resources may bring something different to the towns and
villages.
Alternative approximation is comparing neighboring municipalities to find any
significant difference in economic and fiscal performances. This will compare famous
Kamikatsu and Umaji with their less famous neighbors with similar geographical conditions.
Population (National Census Data), gross regional products (prefectural government database),
fiscal self-sufficiency index (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Data), and the
ratio of recurrent expenditure of the budget (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
Data) is compared. Points to be discussed as follows:
1) Population - Do the two municipalities show better results in reversing the decreasing trend
of population?
2GRP - Have the two municipalities achieved higher turnout of production?
5

FiscalSelf-suffiency Index
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Kam ikatsu
N aka
Katsuura
Kam iyam a
Population (1975=100)
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Y
e
a
r
Kam ikatsu
Naka
Katsuura
Kam iyam a
G ross RegionalP roduct (1996=100)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
Year
Kam ikatsu
Naka
Katsuura
Kam iyam a
Tokushim a Pref
3) Fiscal self-sufficiency index - Have the two municipalities successfully increased their
own fiscal revenue?
4) Ratio of recurrent expenditure - Have the two municipalities, as a result of fiscal
consolidation, obtained enough budgetary flexibility to allocate more fund for development
projects and programs?

(1) Kamikatsu

In the case of Kamikatsu, data from
Kamikatsu, Naka, Katusuura and Kamiyama
are compared. Kamikatsu is the smallest
amongst them, while Naka is the remotest from
the prefectural capital of Tokushima. These
four towns are neighboring.
Population is decreasing in all four
neighboring municipalities. Kamikatsu showed
the steepest decrease in 1980. Although
U-turner and I-turners are reported, it is still far
from reversing the decreasing trend.
GRP growth of Kamikatsu was positive in
the last years of the 1990s, but then decreased. There
is no significant difference amongst the neighboring
municipalities. The popularity of Kamikatsu
increased drastically between 2005 and 2007, when
Kamikatsu became famous through media coverage.
But popularity does not give Kamikatsu any positive
outcomes, as far as GRP is concerned.
On the fiscal front, there are almost
no positive indications. Kamikatsu shows the
worst self-sufficiency index and there are
little signs of improvement.
Figure 1: Kamikatsu population vs. neighbors
Source: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
2010
Source: Ministry of Internal Affairs and
Communications 2010
Figure 2: Kamikatsu GRP vs. neighbors
Source: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications 2010
Figure 3: Kamikatsu self-sufficiency vs. neighbors
6

R atio of R ecurrent Expenditure of the Budget
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
%
Kam ikatsu
N aka
Katsuura
Kam iyam a
P opulation 1970=100
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Um aji
Kitagw a
Tano
Toyo
Yasuda
G ross R eginal P roducts (1996=100)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
Year
Kochi
U m aji
Kitagawa
Tano
Toyo
Yasuda
Fiscal Self-sufficiency Index
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
Year
Um aji
Kitagaw a
Tano
Toyo
Yasuda
As far as the ratio of recurrent cost is
concerned, all the four municipalities have
improved the flexibility of their budget.
However, Kamikatsu remains in the lowest
rank. These figures suggest that popular
Kamikatsu Model has almost no effect on
the fiscal consolidation.



(2) Umaji
For the case of Umaji, five villages belonging to
Aki County are compared. The population is
decreasing in all five municipalities. During the
1970s and 80s, the rate of population decrease
in Umaji was at the highest, but a steep
decrease was contained.


The GRP of the five other
municipalities is decreasing more than that of
Kochi Prefecture as a whole. Umajis
condition is relatively better, presumably
because the size of their business is relatively
large. However, it must be noted that the
index is lower than that of 1996.


The five municipalities show no
significant improvement in fiscal self-sufficiency
index.




Figure 4: Kamikatsu ratio of recurrent expenditure vs.
neighbors
Source: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
2010
Source: Ministry of Internal Affairs and
Communications 2010
Figure 5: Umaji population vs. neighbors
Source: Ministry of Internal Affairs and
Communications 2010

Figure 6: Umaji GRP vs. neighbors
Figure 7: Umaji fiscal self-sufficiency vs. neighbors
Source: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications 2010
7

R atio of R ecurrent Expenditure in the Budget
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
U m aji
Kitagaw a
Tano
Toyo
Yasuda


The ratio of recurrent expenditure may
be improved by various factors. If a
municipality can successfully implement the
administrative reform, we can observe
enhanced flexibility of the budget. While Tano
and Kitagawa towns are improving budgetary
flexibility, Umaji failed to improve it.




(3) Reality of local recourse-based development

The positive impact of local resource based development strategy on economy (GRP)
is not clear. There are probably no significant impacts on it. Umaji shows slightly better
performance than Kamikatsu. This is partly due to the size of their citrus business. In the cases,
very limited effects on the fiscal consolidation of local government are observed. This resulted
can be interpreted to mean that Kamikatsu and Umaji successfully contained further
deterioration of local economy, and therefore are successful. In another way, it can be said that
Kamikatsu and Umaji failed to enhance or improve their economic and fiscal conditions
despite their high profile activities. Although this point can be argued further, it can be
concluded that there is no clear evidence that the strategy has positive effects. In addition, it
may be noted that Kamikatsu and Umaji are heavily dependent on the market of large cities,
which casts doubt on the interpretation that the development of the villages was in fact
indigenous.

6. Conclusion

The local resource based development strategies are not a panacea for rural
development. The impact is very limited despite the famous activities and that they are
frequently referred to as success stories. Evaluating them as economic performance projects
would render a mixed picture. Therefore, it is better to evaluate them not as projects but as
movements, where the various process indicators on participation and capacity development
can be evaluated.
Local resource based development strategies cannot replace or be a substitute for
budgetary transfers from the center government to the local. In other words, the importance of
Figure 8: Umaji ratio of recurrent expenditure vs.
neighbors
Source 1: Ministry of Internal Affairs and
Communications 2010
8

the redistributional function of the central government should not be overlooked. Various
budgetary arrangements to support the local municipality, including the unconditional grant
system, should be contemplated in the context of decentralization, in order to strengthen the
ownership of the local municipalities, at the same time provide incentives for better
management and fiscal discipline.

References
Fujita, M. 2006. Economic Development Capitalizing on Brand Agriculture: Turning
Development Strategy on Its Head. Discussion Paper No.76 - Institute of Developing
Economies. Tokyo: JETRO.
Japan International Cooperation Agency. 2004. Capacity Development Handbook for JICA
staff: For Improving the Effectiveness and Sustainability of JICA's Assistance. Tokyo:
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Japan International Cooperation Agency. 2004. Application of the Experience of Regional
Vitalization, a Replicable Regional Activities, (Chiiki Okoshi no Keiken wo Sekai ni -
Tojoukoku ni Tekiyou-Kanou na Chiiki-Katsudo). Tokyo: Japan International
Cooperation Agency
Kochi Prefecture. 2010. Shichoson Keizai Toukei. [Economic Statistics of the Municipalities
of Kochi Prefecture]. http://www.pref.kochi.lg.jp/soshiki/111901/19si-keizai.html
(Accessed 11 February 2011).
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2005. Heisei 17 Nen Kokusei-Chosa [2005
National Census Data]. http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2005/index.htm (Accessed
11 February 2011).
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2008. Zaisei Hikaku Bunseki-Hyo (Heisei
20 nendo) [Fiscal Comparative tables of the Municipalities (2008)].
http://www.soumu.go.jp/iken/zaisei/bunsekihyo_5.html, (Accessed 11 February
2011).
Tokushima Prefecture. 2010. Heisei 19 Nendo Tokushima-Ken Shichosonmin Shotoku Suikei
Kekka [Regional Income Statistics of Tokushima Prefecture and the Municipalities of
2007]. http://www.pref.tokushima.jp/statistics/gcp/ (Accessed 11 February 2011).

Strategic Approach to Rural
Development
- Is Mobilization of Local Resourcesan effective solution?
Kaoru Hayashi
Bunkyo University
The discussions of this paper
Is mobilization of local resources an effective
solution for rural development, to be
recommended to developing countries?
What are the real implications of experiences of
the J apanese rural development through local
resource mobilization, such as Kamikatsu Town
in Tokushima Pref.
What are the most important policy implications
for managing decentralization under
globalization from the standpoint of Public
Financial Management (PFM).
Global Trend toward Mobilization of
Local Resources
Paradigm shifts in development thoughts
Global Target (MDGs) can only be achieved through
aggregates of local activities (convergence of
growth-mediatedand support-ledapproach for
development.
Capacity development is a key to sustainable
development. Aid aiming at to fill the financial and
technical assistance may increase Aid Dependency
Local ownership and local initiatives are key to the
effective global development.
Capacity, ownership and income may be enhanced
through effective utilization of local resources, which
provides people means and opportunities for
development.
Activities in practice
Micro-Planning /Participatory Rural Appraisal
Village based resource management
Participatory Workshop
Mapping and Diagram
Livelihood Approach
Identification of factors available for livelihood strategies
Analysis of preconditions, assumptions and other factors which may
influence the strategies.
Strategic decisions
SHG (Self Help Group)
Income generating Activities
Womens group are activated.
Provision of initial investment fund
Local resource-based business
Agriculture and agricultural products
Cottage Industries
Service sector (Kiosk, SIM card etc.)
In each case, mobilization of local resources is the most important
factor
Participatory Rural Appraisal
Workshop with local people,
with maps and diagrams to
Identify the local resources
Rajasthan State
J ICA Arravali Hills Afforestation
Project
Self Help Group
Tamil Nadu State, India
Photo: K.Hayashi
Development Models from J apan
1970 through 1990
Government-directed industrialization
Industrial Policy
21
st
century
Development based on Local Resources
One Village One Product Oita
Road Side Stations
Agro-based local business (Kamikatsu Town,
Umaji Village, etc.)
RSS Tohno, Iwate
Prefecture
http://www.michi-no-eki.net/Riyosha/R-110.php
Photo: K.Hayashi
In 1991 road side stations in Abu
Town, Yamaguchi and two other
places were opened as
experiments. There are more
than 900 stations now
Road Side Stations
In 2004, J apan Bank for International
Cooperation (now J ICA) held global
seminar on Road Side Stations. The
World Bank issued the guideline for
Road Side Stations and start piloting
in China, Kenya and some other
countries.
OVOP is promoted
globally by the
Government of J apan
Made in Kenya Fairin Nairobi.
March 2007, sponsored by GOJ ,
J ETRO and J ICA.
Photo: K.Hayashi
Local Industries
Snake related products
form local Kenyan Village
Photo: K.Hayashi
Innovative Projects Irodoriand Zero
Waste
4000 visitors both inside and outside
of J apan. Internationally well-known
village as a model of rural
development.
J ICA has incorporated it into its
training program.
Agro-based local business in Kamikatsu Town, Tokushima
About 40kms from Tokushima
City
Populations less than 2000
Aging Population average
age of villagers 57.92005
Photo: K.Hayashi
IrodoriProject
Started in 1981 by Mr. Yokoishi, a junior manager of
the village agricultural cooperative.
Maple leaves and other plants and leaves are collected
and sold to the restaurants in Tokyo and Osaka as
accessories for J apanese dished.
Participation by the villagers. Aged people also joined
the projects.
Using village cable network system
Outcomes
Annual sales are more than 250 million Yen every year
Even women above age of 80 could earn more than yen 10
million per year
Revitalization of aged villagers
Reduction of medical expense
Return of younger generation
(

http://www.irodori.co.jp
Photo: K.Hayashi
http://www.irodori.co.jp
To classify waste into 34 categories for
reduce, reuse and recycle.
Zero Waste Project
Photo: K.Hayashi
Station for Reuse
Recycling rubbish as compost
Furnace is not in use
Improving environment may
enhance value added of village
products
Photo: K.Hayashi
Umaji Village
The smallest Village of
Kochi Prefecture, but one
of the most famous village
in J apan for its citrus fruits
and their products.
The village used to
depend on the logging,
however it lost
competitiveness against
imported logs.
1980, the village started
citrus fruits related
industry.
Photo: K.Hayashi
Annual Sales of the
Citrus related products
are more than 3 billion
Yen (Ten times larger
than the total sales of
the leaves and plants
of Kamikatsu Village).
Umajibrand is well
known.
The village factory Photo: K.Hayashi
https://www.shop.yuzu.or.jp/goods/goodslist.htm?num=04
Discourses of Local Resource-
based Development
Utilization of untapped opportunity
Income generation through inputs relatively
easier to obtain
Nurturing a sense of ownership for development
amongst the villagers
Capacity development of villagers through
engagement and participation
Visualizing intangible traditional knowledge and
transferring it to the next generation
Revitalizing community and people
Reality of Myth?
Strengthening of local Economy
Financial consolidation of local
government
Indigenous development process (in place
of external intervention and support)
Key to the sustainable development of
local community and decentralization
Reality Check
Difficulty to check the reality (measurement of impact)
Lack of counterfactuals
Alternative approximation
Comparing neighboring municipalities (towns and villages) to find out
any significant difference on economic and fiscal performances.
Comparing famous Kamikatsu Town and Umaji Village with their less
famousneighbors, with similar geographical conditions.
Data Compared
Population (National Census Data)
Gross Regional Products (Each prefectural government data base)
Fiscal self-sufficiency index (Ministry of Internal Affairs and
Communications Data)
Ratio of the recurrent expenditure of the budget (Ministry of Internal
Affairs and Communications Data)
Points to be discussed
Population
Do the two municipalities show better results in reversing the
decreasing trend of population?
GRP
Have the two municipalities achieved higher turnout of
production?
Fiscal self-sufficiency Index
Have the two municipalities successfully increased their own
fiscal revenue?
Ratio of recurrent expenditure
Have the two municipalities, as a result of fiscal consolidation,
obtained enough budgetary flexibility to allocate more fund for
development projects and programs?
Naka
Kamikatsu
Katsuura
Kamiyama
Tokushima Prefecture
P opulation (1975=100)
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Y
e
a
r
Kam ikatsu
Naka
Katsuura
Kam iyam a
Population is decreasing in all four neighboring municipalities.
Kamikatsu showed the steepest decrease in 1980. It is still far from
reversing the decreasing trend, although some U-turnI-turnis
reported.
G ross R egionalProduct (1996=100)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
Year
Kam ikatsu
N aka
Katsuura
Kam iyam a
Tokushim a P ref
GRP growth of Kamikatsu was remarkable in the last years of
1990s but then decreased. There are no significant difference
amongst the neighboring municipalities.
FiscalSelf-suffiency Index
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Kam ikatsu
Naka
Katsuura
Kam iyam a
Kamikatsu shows the worst self-sufficiency index and
there is little signs of improvement
R atio of Recurrent Expenditure of the B udget
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
%
Kam ikatsu
N aka
Katsuura
Kam iyam a
All the four municipalities have improved the flexibility of budget. Kamikatsu
is remaining at the lowest.
Kochi Prefecture
Umaji
Toyo
Kitagawa
Yasuda
Tano
Aki County
Population 1970=100
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
U m aji
Kitagw a
Tano
Toyo
Yasuda
The population is decreasing in all five municipalities. Umajis decreasing rate is
at the highest but is seems to contain that further steep decrease.
G ross ReginalProducts (1996=100)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
Year
Kochi
Um aji
Kitagawa
Tano
Toyo
Yasuda
The GRP of five municipalities are decreasing more than that of
Kochi Prefecture as a whole. Umajis condition is relatively better.
FiscalSelf-sufficiency Index
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
Year
U m aji
Kitagawa
Tano
Toyo
Yasuda
The five municipalities show no significant improvement
Ratio of R ecurrent Expenditure in the B udget
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
U m aji
Kitagawa
Tano
Toyo
Yasuda
While Tano and Kitagawa are improving budgetary flexibility, Umaji
failed to improve it.
Reality
Positive impact on economy (GRP) of local
resource-based development strategy is not
clear. Probably, there are no significant impact
on it. Umaji shows slightly better performance
than Kamikatsu. This is partly due to the size of
the citrus business of 3 billion Yen, compare to
250 million yen of Kamikatsu.
Very limited effects on the fiscal consolidation of
local government.
Interpretation of the reality
Which interpretation is right?
Kamikatsu and Umaji successfully stopped further
deterioration of local economy
Kamikatsu and Umaji failed to enhance/improve
economic and fiscal conditions despite their high
profile local development activities.
Kamikatsu and Umaji are dependent heavily on
the market of large cities. In this sense, the
development process is not indigenous.
Conclusions (1)
The local resource-based development
strategies are not panacea for the rural
development. The impact is very limited despite
that some of the activities are very famous and
referred quite frequently as success stories.
At least, it may gives us mixed picture if we try to
evaluate them in terms of economic
performance as projects.
Therefore, it is better to evaluate them not as
projects but as movements, where we can
evaluate by various process indicators on
participation and capacity development.
Conclusion (2)
The local resource-based development strategies can
not replace or substitute the budgetary transfer from the
centre to the local. In other words, importance of
redistributional function of the central government should
not be overlooked.
Various budgetary arrangements to support the local
municipality should be contemplated in the context of
decentralization, in order to strengthen the ownership of
the local municipalities, at the same time provide
incentives for better management and fiscal discipline.
1

Development of Rural Town (Growth Center)
as a Measure to Integrate Rural and Urban Areas into a Functional Region
- A Strategic Approach for Rural Development

Dr. Emil Elestianto Dardak, MSc
1


Abstract
Dichotomy of urban and rural in development planning has been criticized because
interdependence exists between rural and urban areas and conventional categorization ceases to
be effective in distinguishing them. Integrated rural-urban planning, which views rural and urban
as a functional region, is gaining attention and is gradually being implemented in Europe and
Asia. The main objective is to promote rural development through establishing a healthy rural-
urban linkage. Development of rural towns is one of the methods to achieve the integration of
rural and urban areas into a functional region. This paper observes how economic growth and
regional spatial structure interacts, and concludes that the disproportionate multiplier effect that
drives agglomeration benefits is critical to the successful development of a functional region.

Keywords: Rural-Urban Linkage, Integrated Rural-Urban Planning, Rural Development, Rural
Towns

Introduction-- the Rural and Urban Dichotomy
Dichotomy of urban and rural in development planning is inevitable. Such dichotomy is
intended to ensure that appropriate development policies and actions are being made to fulfill the
needs and optimal function of rural and urban areas. Urban, as a center for agglomeration of
economic and social activities, is characterized with higher population density. Urban areas are
supported with a more intensive development environment and physical facilities including
infrastructure, which in turn promotes higher efficiency in activities. Areas that do not possess
urban characteristics are categorized as rural. Rural areas typically have lower population
density with fewer economic and social activities and less intensity of the built environment and
physical facilities development.
In Indonesia, the Spatial Planning Law no.26/2007 defines urban as areas where the main
activities are not agriculture. The functions of urban areas include urban settlements, center for
public administration and services, social services and economic activities. The law defines rural
as areas where agriculture or other primary natural resources extraction are the primary activities.
The functions of rural areas include rural settlements, public administration and services, social
services and economic activities. This demonstrates the formalization of rural-urban dichotomy
in development planning, directed towards ensuring spatial planning policy fits with the intended
functioning of rural and urban areas.

Integration of Rural and Urban Areas

1
The author is a development specialist consultant for multilateral and bilateral agencies projects, and is currently
the Executive Vice President of Indonesia Infrastructure Guarantee Fund. The author is also a senior faculty member
at the Faculty of Economics, Esa Unggul University, Indonesia. Email: dardak1@yahoo.com
2

The dichotomy in rural and urban areas must not lead to a disconnection between them.
Urban regional planning influences relevant rural areas and vice versa. There is, therefore, a need
to ensure such interdependency is well incorporated in decision making for spatial planning,
which in turn discourages a separate planning exercise between urban planning and rural
planning. The favored approach is a shift towards regional planning covering both urban and
rural areas.
Criticism of the fragmented approach in regional planning has been voiced by scholars.
Hodge and Monk (2004) find associating rural areas with lower economic levels is not always
accurate. This is because in some regional systems rural areas qualify as urban areas if economic
level is the measure and some urban areas have an economic level similar to rural areas.
Hoggart (1990) has a similar view through his criticism of regional planners and
academicians who overlook the necessity of theories that identify the structural difference
between rural areas. This is a contradicting view if compared with the common understanding
that rural areas are economically inferior to urban areas. The focus is, however, not on the
superiority of the rural economy, but rather the need to depart from the business-as-usual
approach that distinguishes rural and urban areas merely by their respective economic level.
There is a need to shift to an integrated view on rural and urban areas, particularly given the fact
that the rural economy is not independent from the associated urban economy, highlighting the
importance of rural-urban linkage. Caffyn and Dahlstrom (2005) suggest the need to integrate
rural and urban areas with a focus on interdependencies and commonalities.
This is in line with the trend in European policy papers, stressing interdependence and
focusing towards functional regions rather than separating between urban and rural. China also
seeks to put more investment, subsidies, fiscal and policy supports into rural areas towards better
coordination of urban and rural development, in which expansion of rural demand is seen as the
key measure in boosting domestic demand. The Republic of Korea developed the rural-urban
integrated city, which incorporates rural counties with cities in a unified spatial framework
(World Bank, 2009). Such an approach is considered more effective in improving local public
service and local administration, as well as in reducing rural-urban disparities. The program
resulted in 41 cities and 39 rural countries being amalgamated into 40 rural-urban integrated
cities.

Development of Rural Town
Development of secondary cities or rural towns can be one of the methods to implement
the integration of rural and urban areas. Rondinelli (1991) observes the government policies in
Asian countries aimed at creating a balanced pattern in urban development, and how these
policies often failed to achieve their intended purpose. Such failures create awareness on the
importance of diffusing urban growth rather than suppressing or limiting it.
Learning from the failures, Asian countries have shifted their focus in their urban
development policy. The new focus is towards policies that promote investments in secondary
and small urban areas where the potential growth allows for integration of urban and rural
markets. To further comprehend how the development of small urban areas or rural town can
promote the integration of rural and urban areas into a functional region it is important to
understand the inseparability of rural and urban areas that can be achieved. This can be identified
through analyzing the nature of the economic development process.
3

From a regional perspective, economic development can be viewed from two dimensions,
economic growth and the spatial structure dimension (Parr 1979). These two dimensions are
interlinked without any exact sequence, and therefore, economic growth can promote the change
in spatial structure. There have also been cases where the characteristic and pace of change in the
regional economy is affected by the initial spatial structure. In understanding the mechanism of
integration of rural and urban, emphasis is placed on how economic growth can result in a
change of the spatial structure.
Parr (1987) provides an example of regional economic development that involves a
spatial structural change. This case study involves a newly growing economic region with initial
per capita income that is relatively low. Parr uses population density as a measure for change in
spatial structure. In the model from Parrs case study, economic growth induces population
growth. Higher population growth occurs in the center of the region and declines with distance
from the center of the region. Parr uses the term metropolis to refer to the center of the region.
The metropolis is considered as the developing growth center. There are two possibilities to
explain such a pattern, Regional Concentration with Metropolitan Centralization.
The first possibility is that the region where initially its economy is powered by
traditional activities finally experience industrialization. In this case, Lampard (1955) stresses
that if the difference in transport cost is not significant, economic activities need not be located
near the market. This creates the occurrence of a concentrated pattern for production activity
location. It is important to note that the absence of significant transportation cost allows for a
concentration of activities around a certain radius from the metropolis. In the non-metropolis part
of the economy, or areas outside the growth center, there occurs economic growth, but at a
slower rate. The growth in the non-metropolis part is caused by the income obtained by
commuters, who work in the metropolis, as well as the increased demand from metropolis
settlers for non-metropolis products and that economic activities related to raw materials and
food are being supplied from the non-metropolis part of the region. Therefore, an economic
growth that originates from industrialization taking place at the growth center trickles down to
the hinterland or non-metropolis part of the region.
The second possibility is that the region experiences growth starting from the non-
metropolis part of the region, which in turn creates a stimulus to the metropolis part of the region.
This can occur in new settlements area. The development of agriculture and natural resource
based activities in the non-metropolis area creates demand for goods and services that only exist
in the metropolis part of the region. Such goods and services usually cover manufactured goods
used as inputs for the final production or consumption, as well as services such as banking,
finance, groceries, transportation, and consumer-oriented services. The nodal location (centered)
of the metropolis, and the economies of scale for economic activities taking place in the
metropolis, as explained by Parr (1973), creates a disproportionate multiplier effect experienced
by the metropolis from growth originating from non-metropolis part. In other words, because the
surrounding area comprising of agriculture activities or natural resources extraction experience
growth there is leverage because the metropolis area can produce the goods or services that the
region needs in a more efficient manner.
However, there is an important pre-requisite that must be fulfilled for economies of scale
to occur. This pre-condition can be explained by illustrating the region into a circular area, with
the metropolis forming a nucleus in the form of a smaller circle located in the center of the larger
main circle. If the growth originates only from some of the areas around the main circle and
outside the nucleus, maximum leverage cannot be achieved. Economies of scale require growth
4

that originates from most of the surrounding area. The extent of the leverage will determine the
potential economies of scale. The magnitude of leverage can be depicted as a result of the
proportion of surrounding area that experiences growth and the maximum spatial leverage. The
degree of leverage can be formed in the following equation:

Figure 1: Degree of leverage equation

Source: Author

Where A is the surrounding area (hinterland) that experiences economic growth, R is the
radius of the whole economic region, and r is the radius of the nucleus or metropolis.
The final ratio can be calculated simply without calculating the other two ratios that are
multiplied in the equation 1. It is important to note that the other ratios play an important
function in determining whether the spatial arrangement is optimal in terms of utilization of
natural resources for the whole region. The ratio from surrounding area that experience economic
growth to the total surrounding area represents proportion of the surrounding area that
experiences growth. This ratio on its own provides a figure for the optimality of the leverage.
The closer this figure is to 1, the more optimal is the leverage. The maximum spatial leverage is
the ratio of the surrounding area to the area of the nucleus. The result of these two ratios is the
ratio of the surrounding area that experiences growth, to the nucleus area.
This ratio shows the level of leverage based on how large the surrounding area is that
experiences growth as the potential market for the nucleus, compared to the area of the nucleus
itself. Nevertheless, this calculation does not consider population density and differences or
disparity in natural resources. Therefore, the use of area can simply be substituted in this formula,
with other indicators such as population size, agricultural production or size of fertile land. The
following figure provides an illustration.


Source: Author
Figure 1: Illustration of Functional Region and Leverage Formula
5

Conclusion
In conclusion, the integration of rural and urban areas as a functional region can be better
understood by putting forward the concept of growth pole in rural areas. Such optimization can
be better achieved by developing secondary cities or rural towns that can act as diffuser of large
urban areas growth through a system of urban network formed by spatial structure and
infrastructure. This concept should be integrated in the strategic approach for rural development,
to ensure sustainable rural-urban linkage and the achievement of optimum benefit from urban
agglomeration.

References
Caffyn, A., Dahlstrm, M. (2005), Urban-rural interdependencies: J oining up policy in practice,
Regional Studies, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 283-296.
Hodge, I., Monk, S. (2004), The economic diversity of rural England: Stylised fallacies and
uncertain evidence, Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 20, no. 3, July 2004, pp .263-272.
Hoggart, K. (1990), Let's do away with rural, Journal of Rural Studies, vol.6, no. 3, pp. 245-
257.
Parr, J .B. (1973), Growth Poles, Regional Development and Central Place Theory, Papers of the
Regional Science Association, vol. 31, no.2, pp. 172-212.
Parr, J .B. (1987), The Development of Spatial Structure and Regional Economic Growth, Land
Economics, vol. 63, no. 2, pp.113-127.
Lampard, E.E. (1955), The History of Cities in the Economically Advanced Areas, Economic
Development and Cultural Change, vol.3, no.2, pp.81-102.
World Bank (2009), World Development Report, Washington DC
Dr. Emil E. Dardak, MSc
Rural Development Roundtable Discussion
JICA JDS Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
Beppu, Japan, 14-15 February 2011
Introduction
The world is experiencing rapid urbanization in
2008 more than half the worlds population will be
living in urban areas migration is a significant
contributor;
Pros: larger cities create agglomeration externalities,
contribute to more economic growth
Cons: agglomeration takes place provided sufficient
surplus over agricultural activities take place, the
world is at the same time struggling with food
sustainability & excessive urban environmental
footprint
Roles of Urban and Rural
Urban areas are nourished due to their agglomeration
advantages; New York and London are larger than
economies such as Sweden;
Rural areas are maintained as food production and
ecological conservation, often characterized in spatial
planning by areas with limited allowed level of
physical development;
This dichotomy however begin to raise questions as
both involve human population that are indivisible
and would eventually require similar amenities and
work opportunities;
The New Approach
Integrated Rural Development
Combining rural productivity approach and rural
settlements goods and services approach Rural
dwellers cant be expected to remain as sustainable
producer of food when they are deprived of
opportunities to enjoy better amenities;
Integration of Rural and Urban Area
Recognizing interdependence (flow of goods, people
and services) Rural-Urban Linkage;
The New Approach
Integrated Rural Development
Combining rural productivity approach and rural
settlements goods and services approach Rural
dwellers cant be expected to remain as sustainable
producer of food when they are deprived of
opportunities to enjoy better amenities;
Integration of Rural and Urban Area
Recognizing interdependence (flow of goods, people
and services) Rural Urban Linkage;
The New Approach
Integrated Rural Development
Combining rural productivity approach and rural
settlements goods and services approach Rural
dwellers cant be expected to remain as sustainable
producer of food when they are deprived of
opportunities to enjoy better amenities;
Integration of Rural and Urban Area
Recognizing interdependence (flow of goods, people
and services);
The Premise for Rural Town
Development of rural town to bridge the gap between rural
areas and urban areas bringing urban benefits closer to rural
villages for both agricultural supply chain and urban amenities;
High mobility may counter the issue of high cost of travel
inducing people to migrate for longer period rather than doing
short term visits;
Also known as small and intermediate urban centers, they can
provide local markets for rural produce, and support
distribution of goods and services (amenities);
Promote activities with backward and forward linkages with
agriculture stimulate regional growth (Satherwaite, 2003)
Urban Hierarchy may contribute to greater efficiency given the
energy challenge for long distance mobility (consistent with
Christaller and Pred)
The Premise for Rural Town (cont.)
Two sources of
economic growth
influencing spatial
structure (Parr):
Rural induced;
Urban induced;
Efficiency depends
on leverage of urban
core;
Conclusion
Integration of rural and urban planning is important
to ensure interdependence is well factored into
development policies;
Rural towns are consistent with integrated rural
approach, urban hierarchy, and can be extended to
agropolitan levels (town serving a number of villages);
The role of infrastructure is key, so is the locational
decision for the growth center;
1

Role of Participatory Evaluation in Local Governance

Yuriko Minamoto, Ph.D.
Graduate School of Governance Studies, Meiji University

Introduction
Since the 1970s the field of evaluation research in the United States and Canada has
witnessed a growing recognition of theories and methods of evaluation that seek to involve a
programs primary stakeholders as a means of improving the utilization of the evaluation.
Evaluation of this kind has come to be widely known by the label participatory evaluation.
Unlike conventional evaluation, which centers around the work of evaluation experts, or the
work of individuals within an organization charged with the task of evaluation
i
, participatory
evaluation invites people other than evaluators to participate in the evaluation process. Putting
participatory evaluation into practice is not a question of simply involving residents in every
evaluation activity because there is a need for participatory development. Rather, there is a
need to build evaluation strategies that take into consideration why participation is needed in
order to achieve participatory development. The evaluation mechanism should combine
participation and evaluation.
Peoples participation in community development has come to the forefront in Japan,
especially after decentralization was enacted in the late 1990s. In some cities people
participate in planning, implementation and evaluation of policies or programs. In this
presentation paper, the role of participatory evaluation in local governance is discussed
through a case example where government and civil society work together for community
development.

Features of Participatory Evaluation
Various stakeholders in participatory development share the process of the evaluation to
increase the added value of the evaluation. If it can be said that conventional evaluation
stresses the impact of the results of an evaluation, then participatory evaluation can be said to
stress the impact of the process of evaluation (Patton 1997) on stakeholders participating
therein. The term stakeholder, as used here, does not only refer to the recipients of services. It
refers to any and all parties who have a concern in the program being evaluated. Who should
2

be involved depends on factors such as how the evaluation is to be used and the
interests/needs of those involved in the evaluation.
Depending on how it is to be used, participatory evaluation can be considered to fall into
one of two categories: one which stresses utility-practical participatory evaluation, and the
other which stresses social transformation- transformative participatory evaluation (Cousin
and Whitmore 1998). The origins of the former are found primarily in the United States and
Canada and its aims are the improvement of and problem solving within the programs or
organizations under evaluation. It anticipates that stakeholders involvement in the evaluation
process will increase their sense of belonging and commitment vis--vis the program, and that
this will increase the utility of the evaluation. A number of concerns gave rise to the
emergence of this kind of practical participatory evaluation. These included the concern that
the findings of large scale assessments carried out by experts and at considerable expense are
not always put to good use. They also included the fear that quantitative evaluations, while
held to be objective and scientific, might not actually reflect the diversity of social, economic
and political contexts found in the circumstances or background particular to the program
under evaluation.
On the other hand, transformative participatory evaluation has evolved out of the fields
of community development and adult education, primarily in developing countries.
Combining aspects of both participatory research and action research, it is regarded as a
means for social changes. This kind of participatory evaluation arose from evaluations carried
out in the tragic social conditions that exist in some parts of the world. More specifically it
emerged from the efforts of researchers, primarily sociologists and anthropologists,, who
sought to give a voice to the oppressed and find solutions to peoples problems through their
evaluations. Throughout this process the researchers suffered the dilemma of being involved
not only as evaluators but also as sympathizers with the plight of the people living in the
conditions they were evaluating. In this sense, therefore, the aims of the evaluation are
political ones and include empowerment, the liberation of peoples minds, reform, social
justice, and the acceptance of diverse values. As a result, the evaluation process is held to be a
learning process, one which aims, through capacity-building - including the acquisition of
evaluation skills - to bring about some form of change.
In stressing the importance of dialogue, participatory evaluation takes a constructivist
perspective, namely that truth is something that is formed within a social context, something
that is interpreted and has meaning only within a body of values (Guba and Lincoln 1989). It
does not exist as a single preexistent and objective value. By introducing dialogue between
3

different stakeholders, the evaluation design of participatory evaluation reflects the diversity
of the interests and viewpoints of a programs principle stakeholders. The evaluation that is
subsequently carried out is done so according to value preferences, which are therefore
deemed persuasive enough to all those concerned.

Case Example: Health Promotion Program in Shinagawa City, Tokyo
ii

In order to look into the role of participatory evaluation in local governance, the case of
participatory evaluation of a health promotion program delivered by a local government in
Tokyo is analyzed.

Case Overview
Shinagawa is a city in Tokyo prefecture with a population of 349,829 as of April, 2010.
The Shinagawa city office started a program in 2009 to promote health through community
activities initiated by people. Health promotion can be characterized as the process of
enabling people to increase control over and to improve their health, and it moves beyond a
focus on individual behaviour or curative health towards a wide range of social and
environmental interventions (World Health Organization, 2011). The program intended to
provide residents with opportunities to become leaders or active members in health promotion
activities in their respective community.
Approximately fifty residents participated in a six month course. According to
interviews with health officers involved in the program, the motivation of participants shifted
from improving the health of individuals through physical exercise to the enhancement of
their capacity to deal with health issues in the community. The officers expressed concern that
their intention of health promotion activities at the community level might not be well
understood by all participants. The local government was planning to formulate an
implementation committee consisting of volunteer members who have finished the program,
so that the program curriculum can reflect the real needs of the community.
At the end of the first

year of the program, the administration office decided to conduct a
participatory evaluation to improve the program and enhance the motivation of participants.
They felt conventional evaluation by internal officers was not useful for immediate
improvement of the program. Moreover, a top-down approach to the community in program
provision is contradictory for the diffusion of health promotion ideas, where initiatives and
the commitment of people and community groups is extremely important.
4

Nineteen participants took part in the participatory evaluation, including the head of the
administration office, administrative staff, health officers, and residents of Shinagawa who
finished the program. Three steps were implemented in two workshop sessions with the
evaluator as a facilitator. First, the program goals, objectives and strategies were identified
using the logic model. It was found that participants had a slightly different expectation of
the program than that of the implementers, and their perceived goals and objectives varied
among them. The differences between administrators and residents become a critical
discussion point. This step can be seen as a process of participants becoming conscious of
program goals and objectives and current health issues in the community (Minamoto 2010).
The second step was to identify significant concerns about strategy and activities of the
program in light of agreed goals and objectives. They developed several evaluation questions
that they wanted to answer through evaluation. Those questions included relevance of the
program objectives and curriculum development, and the effectiveness of activities for their
respective objectives. Then, the main evaluation questions of how to assess these points and
why they needed to be assessed was asked of the participants. Rather than utilizing a rating or
voting system for assessment, qualitative information was exchanged among participants.
The significant point of this task was to continue a dialogue, and identify critical elements to
consider in future planning.
The discussion results in the second step were fully utilized to plan the future program.
The third step involved asking the participants how they want to pursue the activities in the
current situation. The participants considered objectives and specific strategies identified in
the previous steps. By this time, all the evaluation participants, regardless of their different
stake, were looking in more or less the same direction on the program goals of health
promotion. After the evaluation practice, the residents involved in the evaluation workshops
were reported to become active members of the implementation committee in the following
fiscal year.

Influence of Participatory Evaluation and Implication of its Role
After conducting this participatory evaluation, a revised program started in FY2010. The
influence of the participatory evaluation through focus group discussions conducted in
November 2010 was studied. The objective of the study is to identify how health officers and
residents who took part in the participatory evaluation perceive the influence of the evaluation.
Based on the content analysis of results of focus group discussions, the following findings
were identified.
5

First, the learning process among participants promoted understanding of the program
content, as well as the real needs of residents. Democratic deliberation in this way did
efficiently provide the necessary information to evaluate the program process. It was not
difficult to feed the evaluation results directly back into improvement of the program. Thus,
immediate program improvement is observed as an impact of the participatory evaluation.
Second, the formation of a group of those involved in the evaluation process, in this
example, the implementation committee of the program, is observed. Most of the participants
joined the committee and extended their efforts to make the program work in many ways.
There must be a process of transformation in which those who might have been content with
passive participation, in this case, people not showing any interest in health promotion change
into an actor playing some sort of role in the program.
Third, both parties expressed a change in the relationship between health officers and
residents. In Japan, local government provides services to residents where people passively
receive those services. In the focus group discussions, the health officers confessed that they
might have acted as a superior and not tried to understand real needs of residents. On the
other hand, residents who finished the program recognized their role as mediators between
people in the community and the local government. In other words, the relationship between
people and local government may be restructured to reflect equal partnership.
As observed in the case, the evaluation process brought about change in relationships
between local government and residents, as well as their attitudes and positions in the
program. Local governance embraces the network mechanism of government and civil
society, where different actors are expected to play their roles to contribute to social problems
solving in the community. Using a participatory evaluation framework to demonstrate
deliberative democracy provides a public arena to construct community values and promote
collaborative activities among them. But, we need to keep in mind that this process does not
ensure representativeness of the community. This case focused on the implementation
process of the program and without much attention on outcomes or policy level issues. These
issues remain as a future challenges in terms of applicability of participatory evaluation.

References

Cousins, James Bradley and Whitmore, Elizabeth. 1998. Framing Participatory Evaluation.
Pp. 5-23 in Understanding and Practicing Participatory Evaluation, New Direction for
Evaluation, E. Whitmore (ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y. S. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
6

Minamoto, Yuriko. 2010. Applicability of Empowerment Evaluation Approach in
Community Program: Implications from its Theory and Practice Japanese Journal of
Evaluation Studies 10, no. 2: 1-13.
Patton, Michael Quinn. 1997. Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text, 3
rd

Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
World Health Organization. 2011. Health Promotion.
http://www.who.int/topics/health_promotion/en/ (accessed on 16 February 2011).


i
Hereafter referred to as evaluators
ii
The author participated as an evaluator in the workshops. Training session on evaluation theory was provided
as preliminary activities for the workshop. The author would like to extend sincere appreciation to Shinagawa
Health Office to provide the author with valuable experiences of participatory evaluation activities.
2011.2.14
Yuriko Minamoto
Role of Participatory Evaluation
in Local Governance
YurikoMinamoto, PhD Meij i University
Email: minamoto@kisc.meij i.ac.j p
International Roundtableat APU Feb. 14, 2011
Contents
Features of Participatory Evaluation
Comparison with conventional evaluation
Case Analysis
Health Promotion Program in Shinagawa City, Tokyo
Discussions:
Minamoto 2
Revisiting Program Evaluation
Minamoto 3
Weiss (1998)
Evaluation is the systematic assessment of the
operation and/ or the outcomes of a programor policy,
compared to a set of explicit or implicit standards, as
a means of contributing to the improvement of the
programor policy
Who sets the standards?
Use of Evaluation for?
Minamoto 4
Who Evaluates? (1)
Minamoto 5
Internal
evaluation
Sel f-eval uati on
External
evaluation
Third party
evaluation
Who Evaluates? (2)
Participatory evaluation
Minamoto 6
?
Publ i c
admi ni strati on
Benefi ci aries
Executi ng
agency
Eval uati on
speci alists
Stakeholders
participation in
evaluation activities
Role of evaluation
specialists
Evaluation as a
learning process/
means of capacity
development
2011.2.14
Yuriko Minamoto
Comparison: conventional evaluation vs.
participatory evaluation
Minamoto 7
Conventional evaluation
Assessment by
evaluation
specialists
Objective
Use of evaluation
results
Participatory evaluation
Assessment by
stakeholders
Subjective/
Inter-subjective
Use of evaluation
process
Why Participatory Evaluation?
Minamoto 8
Suspicion on utilization of evaluation results
Reflection of indigenous context and diversities
Need involvement of stakeholders in evaluation
activities for full utilization of evaluation results
Why Participatory Evaluation?
Minamoto 9
In the area of community development and adult
education in developing countries
Evaluators human being with empathy for
socially excluded people
-Evaluation as means to transform society to solve
social problems
-To empower those who have been oppressed
Why Participatory Evaluation?
Minamoto 10
Contextual considerations for evaluation standards
Constructivist view/ the Fourth Generation
Evaluation
Evaluation as human mental constructions (Guba &
Lincolon, 1989)
Whose reality counts?
Value creation among participants
Case: Health Promotion Program in
Shinagawa City in Tokyo
Health promotion program by local government
Outcome:
To improve peoples health and quality of life by
promoting community group activities/enhancing
leadership ability
Main Activities:
1. Skills development for future leaders in the community
(communication skills, facilitation skills)
2. Knowledge enhancement about preventive health, disease,
nutrition
3. Theory and practice of physical exercise
Duration: 6 months
Minamoto 11
Case:
Participatory Evaluation in Practice
When ?
The end of program period (after 6 months)
Who participated?
Participants of the program (residents: 10)
City office health staff (public health nurse, nutritionist,
administrative staff: 9)
How to evaluate?
Workshop / facilitator
Understanding program content: logic model
Formulating evaluation questions
Identifying problems, issuesevaluation by their own standards
Suggestions for a future program (next fiscal year)
Minamoto 12
2011.2.14
Yuriko Minamoto
Case:
Impact of Participatory Evaluation
Learning process among participants
Confirmation of objectives
Real needs of residents/ intention of local government
Immediate improvement of the program
Commitment of participants for next fiscal year
program (implementation committee)
Restructuring people-local government relationship
Concern for end outcome---can people really
contribute to health promotion?
Minamoto 13
Revisiting Concept of
Participatory Evaluation
Minamoto 14
Minamoto 15
Questions and comments?
References:
Minamoto 16
Cousin,J.B.and Whitmore, E. 1998. Framing Participatory
Evaluation, Understanding and Practicing Participatory Evaluation,
New Direction for Evaluation, American Evaluation Association,
Jossey Bass, San Francisco pp5-23
Guba, G.E. & Lincoln, Y.S. 1989 . Fourth Generation Evaluation,
Sage Publications
Minamoto, Y. 2010. Applicability of Empowerment Evaluation
Approach in Community Program: Implications from its Theory and
Practice, Japanese Journal of Evaluation Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2,
September 2010
Patton, M.Q. 1997 .Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century
Text, 3rd Edition, Sage Publications
Weiss, C.H. 1998 .Evaluation, 2nd Edition, Prentice-Hall
1

Participatory Evaluation for Rural Development Management

Cindy Lyn BANYAI, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Refocus Institute

Abstract

Rural development is an area that needs attention in order to pursue human dignity and poverty
alleviation. Successfully management of rural development can only be achieved through proper
policy management using the logic framework and following the policy management cycle.
Participatory evaluation is a way to include local stakeholders into the policy management
process whilst simultaneously building the community capacity that is necessary to support and
sustainable effective rural development policy. Participatory action evaluation (PAE) is a type of
concept-drive participatory action research and is intended to provoke thought and discussion
among its participants, thus building community capacity, as well as generating a wealth of
information useful to researchers and decision-makers alike. This paper describes a pioneer PAE
case focusing on participatory video conducted in Pagudpud, Philippines. The findings reveal
that participatory action evaluation has the dual function of providing information for policy-
making, and community capacity building by empowering people through information
dissemination, critical community discussion, and leadership development. This work adds to
the dialogue on action science, evaluation, and participatory methods.


Keywords: action research, community capacity, concept-driven evaluation, participatory
evaluation, rural development, video evaluation

Significance of Rural Development
There are 1.4 billion people living on less than USD 1.25 a day and two-thirds of those in
poverty live in rural areas in developing countries (International Fund for Agricultural
Development [IFAD] 2010: 8). The bulk of impoverished people reside in rural communities
(IFAD 2001: 2) and this calls for greater attention to those areas in order to achieve development
and poverty alleviation goals (Cling 2002). Fortifying rural economies has benefits greater than
improving the lives of the people in rural communities; it can contribute to food security and the
reduction of rural-urban migration, thus reducing urban poverty and related issues (IFAD 2001:
2; Sachs 2005: 232).

Policy Management

Understanding that there is a need to give attention to rural development is the first step.
Organizing effective policy to meet the demands of rural development is the second. Creating a
policy to address issues in rural development requires the consideration of not only inputs and
activities, but also their linkages to desired changes. Articulating a policy using a logic
framework ensures that there is a progression in the formation and implementation of a policy to
reach overall and preliminary goals.
2

Figure 1 - Logic Framework

Source: Miyoshi 2008; based on JICA 2004

Reading from left to right, the logic framework starts with end outcomes, which represent
the desired change in society (Miyoshi 2008: 3). It is important to start with the end outcome
because knowing the ultimate goal of a policy helps to frame the entire structure. The
framework then moves on to intermediate outcomes, which are the desired changes in the target
groups of the policy, program, or project (Miyoshi 2008: 3). The end outcomes and the
intermediate outcomes combine for the overall outcomes for the policy. The outcomes cannot be
controlled directly through the plan, but are the logical results of the plan outlined on the right of
the framework.
The outputs are the goods and services resulting from the activities that are executed
using inputs such as human and material resources, operating funds, facilities, capital, expertise,
and time (Miyoshi 2008: 3). These can be described as the implementation or administrative
activities of a policy, program, or project. The implementation of a policy, program, or project
can be directly controlled through administrative activities and should logically lead to the
desired outcomes. The outputs and the outcomes collectively can be described as the results of a
policy, program, or project.
Once policy is established and outlined in a logic framework it can be managed through
consistently following the policy management cycle, which incorporates planning and evaluation
into routine administrative activities.
3

Figure 2 - Policy Management Cycle

Source: Miyoshi 2008


The management cycle is a way to articulate the necessary and continuous steps in policy
management. The cycle starts with the ex-post evaluations, evaluation at the completion of a
policy, program, or project (Miyoshi 2008: 9), and the feedback on previous policies, programs,
and projects related to an initiative. The initial stages of policy planning come next. The cycle
moves through a series of preliminary assessments of the proposed policy, culminating in a full
ex-ante evaluation, evaluation commenced before the implementation of a policy, program, or
project (Miyoshi 2008: 9). Based on the results of the ex-ante evaluation, a policy is
implemented, abandoned, or reformulated. After a policy has been implemented, a schedule of
mid-term and terminal evaluations, also known as monitoring (Miyoshi 2008: 9) for its various
projects and programs is decided upon followed by an ex-post evaluation, which then leads back
to the continuation of the policy, as well as the creation of new policies.

Evaluation
Evaluation is of the utmost importance to improve policy structure effectiveness and
increase transparency. Evaluation also plays a crucial role in developing the capacity of relevant
parties involved in a policy structure, as well as to create ownership of such policy structures
through a participatory and local process (Miyoshi and Stenning 2008). Furthermore,
incorporating participatory evaluation methods at the local level by having local stakeholders as
active participants in evaluation, not merely as disempowered subjects or information-givers
(Miyoshi and Stenning 2008), can make evaluation even more impacting and effective.
Participatory evaluation goes beyond a mere examination of facts and outcomes related to
economic aspects of a community, but becomes a process of information sharing in which all
stakeholders benefit from both the results of the evaluation, in future planning and
implementation, and the process of evaluation as a capacity building exercise (Miyoshi and
4

Tanaka 2001). Involving local stakeholders in the process of evaluation also empowers them
through ownership of the process and information (Fujikake 2008: 2; Vernooy, Qiu, and J ianchu
2003: 24).

Participatory Action Evaluation

The word evaluation often evokes images of statistics, forms, and official judgments.
These images often lead to a fear of evaluation, which ultimately reduces its usefulness and can
interfere with the collection of true and valuable information (Weisman 1998: 156). This
atmosphere surrounding evaluation can be changed if evaluation is seen as a tool for local
practitioners and community actors to improve policies and projects that affect them, which in
turn empowers the community and leads to more effective policies.
Participatory action evaluation (PAE) uses non-traditional media such as participatory
photography or video, metaphor drawing, dramatic interpretation, or collaborative art in group
projects with an evaluative objective. This is a qualitative approach to theory-driven evaluation
that incorporates concepts from action research and collaborative inquiry through the media of
group work, and public exhibition. The major themes of PAE are:
1) the need to recount actual details, experiences, and stories;
2) emphasis on the process, not the outputs;
3) providing voice to stakeholders or other groups; and
4) practical utility of theories and information.
PAE is defined as the systematic collection and assessment of information related to the
outcomes, operation, or process of a policy structure, organization or relationship that
incorporates stakeholders in the entire process actively through a collaborative project.
Participants of PAE determine the research questions and indicators through group discussion,
then engage in an activity to interpret and express their response to the questions and indicators.
PAE incorporates ideas from participatory evaluation and action research. This
combination provides for a useful management tool and a beneficial community intervention
(J ackson and Kassam 1998: 9; Small 1995: 949). Both action research and participatory
evaluation:
1) gather data (Weiss 1998);
2) focus on a specific task (Patton 2002: 221; Friedman 2006: 134; Ladkin 2006:
482; Small 1995: 942);
3) involve discussion and consensus building for outcomes (Friedman 2006: 135;
Fults 1993: 86; Small 1995: 946);
4) promote learning and knowledge sharing (Bogenschnieder 1996: 130; Friedman
2006: 132; J ackson and Kassam 1998: 2; Patton 2002: 179; Thurston, Farrar,
Casebeer, and Grossman 2004: 481);
5) promote ownership of policy initiatives (J ackson and Kassam 1998: 2); and
6) have the belief that local people have valuable knowledge (Bogenschnieder 1996:
132; Heron and Reason 2006: 144; Razafindrakoto and Roubaud 2002: 127-128;
Smith 1999: 12-14).
While these approaches have some common ground, they differ on their outcomes.
Participatory evaluation is a management tool that aims for policy improvement and has
community capacity building as an added benefit. While action research can be used to gather
5

data of any sort for any reason, as long as there is active participation and benefits for the
participants.
PAE is a concept-driven evaluation, meaning that there is a broad theoretical framework
that guides the evaluation, rather than simply a toolbox methodology. Having the group interpret
the theory of the policy in question through logic modeling will help them to take ownership of
the concept through the group process (Mendis-Millard and Reed 2007: 543).
In traditional evaluation there is typically an evaluation practitioner: an external expert
that instructs and conducts the evaluation. The PAE convener organizes the evaluation and
facilitates its process. The National Democratic Institute describes a facilitator as someone who
helps a group of people understand their common objectives and assists them to plan and achieve
them without taking a particular position in the discussion (National Democratic Institute [NDI]
2009: 22). The facilitator can be an internal or external stakeholder in the evaluation; the role is
not superior to any of the other evaluation participants.
The job of the facilitator is to introduce the related concepts, to encourage discussion
between the participants, to guide the group to consensus on the evaluation design and
implementation while generally following the cycles of action research (see also Heron and
Reason 2006: 151). The facilitator helps to create openness in the group to ensure all voices are
heard (Gibson and Woolcock 2008: 177), allows the participants to take the lead (Small 1995:
944), and helps to empower local people through the process by not imposing themselves as an
external expert (Dobbs and Moore 2002: 159; Park 2006: 84; Weisman 1998: 156). A leadership
role is still taken by the facilitator; however, there should be awareness and flexibility on their
part (Ladkin 2007: 485), particularly as co-creators of knowledge (Mendis-Millard and Reed
2007: 556).
Evaluation groups of six to twelve participants ensure that the size is manageable, but a
variety of characters and experiences are included (Heron and Reason 2006: 151). A PAE
meeting would follow this general pattern:
1) welcome and introductions;
2) introduction of evaluation objective;
3) participants discuss evaluation objective in pairs;
4) floor is opened for questions and discussion, leading to possible modifications of the
evaluation objective;
5) introduction to action evaluation;
6) discussion in pairs on concept and potential projects;
7) whole group discussion on action evaluation process and decision on project;
8) practical discussion: number of cycles, dates, times, venues, financial and other
commitments (when, how, and of what will be filmed, as well as the topic and format of
the video);
9) clarification of criteria for joining the inquiry group (i.e. money, time commitments);
10) self-assessment exercise in pairs, individuals use the criteria to assess whether they wish
to include themselves in project;
11) participants declare their intention to join;
12) wrap-up (based on Heron and Reason, 2006, pp. 151-152).
This basic agenda is then used at each subsequent meeting with each meetings objective
or step in the project replacing the discussion on the evaluation objective and PAE. The
important process to maintain is small group work and large group discussion. This will ensure
that all participants have ample time to express themselves. The second meeting should include
6

logic modeling, question generation, indicator selection, and further logistical development and
execution of the project. The topic of subsequent meetings will be determined by the process
and project of the group.
The knowledge that is gained through PAE is not limited to narratives, descriptions or
visuals of a particular situation, but rather includes learning on various levels. Participants
benefit from the process by predicting and setting their own goals (within the project itself),
measuring outcomes (of the project and the target of their evaluation), comparing the results with
their predictions, and recommending or pursuing a course of action in relation to their findings
(Fults 1993: 88; J ackson and Kassam 1998: 3; Rietbergen-McCracken and Narayan 1998: 192).
Furthermore, the interaction that participants have allows for joint learning between them and an
exchange of ideas in the re-casting of shared situations and events (Lykes 2006: 273; Mendis-
Millard and Reed 2007: 550-551; Vernooy et al. 2003: 24).

Participatory Action Evaluation Trial Case

A case study can be defined as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary
phenomenon within its real-life context (Yin, 2003, p. 13). The participatory video project of
Pagudpud gathers data on the implementation and impacts of participatory action evaluation.
This case tests the real-life applicability of the method design, as well as observes the process of
its implementation and the outcomes that it generates (Becker and Ragin 1992; Ragin 2000).
Data was gathered through participant observation (Harper 2001), as well as through
unstructured interviews and group discussions (Patton 2002: 342). A case study approach was
selected because the method under inquiry requires groups of people to reflect on ways of
improving what they are doing or understand things in new ways (Patton 2002: 179). This can
best be done through a case study.
For this case study, community capacity building is the driving concept of the evaluation.
The concept was introduced and discussed as a part of the PAE, thus providing the framework
that guided the groups evaluative works and discussions. It is important to evaluate community
capacity because it is related to the ability of a community to attain positive outcomes (Chaskin,
Brown, Venkatesh, and Vidal 2001) and leads to economic development (Gobar 1993: 23) and
successful local policies, including poverty alleviation.

Case Trial Work Plan

The purpose of the project was to learn how people in Pagudpud view their community,
to introduce and contextualize the concept of community capacity, and to encourage community
members to think critically about the situation and events in their community. The overall
intention of this project was to develop the new research methodology of PAE. These purposes
and intentions were conveyed to the project participants.
The initial schedule was designed to reflect the cycles of discussion as described by
Heron and Reason (2006), and included the initial concept discussion that is crucial for a
concept-driven evaluation (Miyoshi and Stenning 2008) and the integration of non-traditional
media (Harper 2001: 10).
The first meeting agenda was established as follows (based on Heron and Reason 2006:
151):
1) Welcome and introduction of facilitators and potential participants
7

2) Questions/Discussion
3) Concept presentation
4) Discussion of concept in pairs
5) Group discussion and questions
6) Decide on themes for video
7) Discussion in pairs on plan and desire to join project
8) Wrap-up and good-byes.
This agenda reflects the crucial introduction of the intended methods and the cycles of
discussion. By constantly asking the group for their reactions, questions, and opinions, the
facilitator can avoid totally dominating the discussion and can instead lead the group to
discussion. Asking the group to discuss possible themes and subjects for their video was based
on Lykes (2006). It is very important to allow the group dynamic to take precedence over the
course of the meeting with as little interjection by the facilitator as possible (Heron and Reason
2006).
The proposed agenda for the second meeting of the video group progresses in much the
same way as the first, only this time the actual video the group took is used as a discussion
stimulus. Additionally, this agenda includes work in pairs, which allows for better and more in-
depth discussion by the participants, giving all participants ample opportunity to express
themselves.
1) Questions and discussion on experience taking video
2) View video
3) Discussion on experience in pairs
4) Choose notable clips for group discussion
5) Record individual and collective accounts and feelings based on the images in advance of
public presentation
6) Wrap-up and good-byes (based on Heron and Reason 2006).
In advance of the Pagudpud case, a Power Point presentation was prepared to train the
local facilitators and guide the first meeting of the video group. The Power Point presentation
followed the outline of the agenda and also included the objectives, the purpose of the project, an
introduction to action research and collaborative inquiry, and the concept of community capacity
with some accompanying cases from J apan (based on previous research conducted by the author).
Following the introduction of each concept a few questions for discussion were presented.
The concepts and theories behind action research with video and community capacity are
complicated and employ very specific terms that may not be familiar to people outside academia.
For this reason, it was necessary to break the concepts down to their essence so that they could
be easily understood and used by the participants (Small 1995: 943). This was done by recasting
the terms in everyday English language for the initial presentation of the concept, as well as
having the participants conceptualize and discuss the terms in their native language of Ilocano.
The concept of action research is framed as a way to learn together and was
communicated in the slide presentation as learning by doing on the part of the researcher and
the participants. Additionally, the idea of power through knowledge was introduced by stating
that the point of PAE is to contribute to empowerment and social change through the
dissemination of information. The group members were also encouraged to express themselves
creatively.
The next concept that was presented to the group was collaborative inquiry. The main
point is to reinforce the idea that the goal of the project is to hear from the participants. A slide
8

entitled hearing from you emphasizes two main points of collaborative inquiry: 1) to
understand your world and develop new and creative ways of looking at things and 2) to learn
how to act to change things you want to change and to find a better way to do those things.
The next slide on collaborative inquiry is called seeing each other as equals and notes
good research is research conducted with people, not on people, which will help the group
better understand their roles and the value of their input. The following slide notes You can do
it! We can do it! and implores the idea that the opinions of the group and their ability to work
out ideas and create things together is important.
After the presentation of these twin concepts, there is a slide with some questions asking
the group their feelings about the concepts presented, as well as their personal understanding of
them. This allows the group some time to discuss and reflect upon the concepts so that they can
begin to gain ownership over them, contextualize them, as well as to give the participants some
time to decide if they would like to continue their participation in the project.

Figure 3 - PAE, participatory video process

Source: Author

The concept of community is introduced next using a star diagram that highlights the
important actors in a community including the residents, local administration, institutions, civil
society, and private businesses. The discussion after this concept is very important because it
allows participants to contextualize what community means to them and other members of the
group.
Community capacity is the next concept introduced. Its definition was further abridged
for the evaluation to state that community capacity is the ability of a community to act by using
the assets and resources they have.
The formal definitions of the community capacity attributes are presented, as well as
more simplified versions of them. Sense of community is described as belonging, building, and
being together. Commitment is said to be responsibility and participation. The ability to set
and achieve objectives is thinking of what you want and how to get it. While the ability to
recognize and access resources is using what ya got and getting what you need. These
summations of SCOR (S a sense of community, C - commitment, O - the ability to set and
achieve objectives, and R - the ability to recognize and access resources) better communicate the
ideas to the people of Pagudpud. A group discussion on the concepts follows their introduction.
Members of the community were invited to view and discuss the video in a final public
presentation. During this presentation, the project participants are asked to discuss the video
with the new viewers, as well as amongst themselves. It was hoped that the exhibition would
further promote dialogue on the concepts (Bleiker and Kay 2007: 157; see also photo elicitation,
Harper 2001: 16), expand the project to another level, and stimulate further discussion on the
issues at hand throughout the community.
9

The schedule and the conceptualization of the project reflect the process of participatory
research, research, education, and action (Small 1995: 943). The research here is the discussion
amongst the participants on the concept and their reflections on the video. The action is the
making the video and the public exhibition. The education is the results of the knowledge
created and shared during discussions and the presentation, as well as the skills and capacity that
are developed through the process of the project.

Participatory Action Evaluation Trial Summary

The video and the process of making it contributed visually to the understanding and
contextualization of the concept of community capacity for the participants. Furthermore, many
of the themes found in other analyses of community capacity are supported by the PAE, such as
the recognition of local natural resources. However, the cultural importance of rice became more
apparent through the time that was devoted to it in the video. This speaks to the ability of PAE
to provide voice and emphasis better than surveys and perhaps even better than interviews,
where respondents have the tendency to merely list resources instead of explain their
significance.
Through the video, much more of the identity of the community was discussed and
discovered. This was something that was otherwise difficult to craft questions about in surveys
and interviews, as well as being difficult for respondents to articulate. However, through the
video, the importance of values, local customs, and traditions, such as samberga
i
were easily
portrayed.
As with the other analyses, it was difficult to uncover the true commitment of the
community. In the other traditional forms of research conducted in the community, many
respondents merely answered questions related to commitment and responsibility affirmatively,
perhaps in an attempt to cast the community in a positive light. The PAE did provide some
insight into the participation of local people in their community and further solidified the
importance of the local concept of bayanihan
ii
, which had only been touched upon in other
analyses.
The ability to set and achieve objectives was aptly represented in the video and supported
the results from other research methods in showing that the local government often takes the lead
and is very active in providing services to its citizens. However, the PAE showed the activities
of local people outside of the government, such as the hotel in the coastal area of Balaoi, the
canal improvement, and building houses and basketball nets. This helped to better show the
kinds of activities that are being undertaken by community members and the objectives that are
important to people.
Overall, the value of the PAE as both a complement to other community capacity
analyses and to provide further insight to the community can be clearly seen. The new
information gathered on the community, and the process of the group, make the PAE an
interesting evaluation method that benefits the community.
The participants who remained throughout the duration of the project enjoyed and gained
from their experience. Furthermore, the message of valuing local resources, building community
pride, and providing voice resounded with the participants.
To elaborate on the results and analysis of the facilitator (author) a feedback
questionnaire was submitted to participants. The interview guide was constructed following
advice offered by Patton (2002) for unstructured interviews (342) and building an interview
10

guide (343). The follow-up questionnaire was designed to help gauge not only the interest
participants and attendees had in the project, but also some ways that the project can be
improved. The last question of the survey is open-ended in an attempt to elicit responses that
cannot be predicted and to allow the participants an opportunity to say anything they wish,
further promoting their voice and ownership of the project. Not all of the participants responded
to the questionnaire, thus limiting the quality and breadth of feedback and the question of what
could be better is not specific enough, often rendering answers about what could be better in the
community instead of the desired response about the project.
It can be seen that most respondents enjoyed participating in the project. One of the
participants, an elementary school principal, stated I enjoyed watching every bit of the video
and understood better the situation of Pagudpud and felt a sense of pride of being one in the
community. Other respondents concurred and stated that they enjoyed the photo taking,
adventuring, [and] meeting with Gods gifts nature and man.
The group enjoyed viewing and taking the video footage, as well as interacting with the
people in their community and the events and resources there. Another participant, a local
community leader, specifically commented that he enjoyed taking video footage roaming
around the community.
Group respondents to the follow-up survey said they learned about their community,
working together with others, communication skills, and the importance of their local resources
and traditions. The community leader commented on what he learned from this project. He said,
The primitive way of life is a tradition need not to be neglected but to be preserved as a
foundation of development. The principal responded, I learned the art of questioning to come
up with specific responses. I also learned the sense of cooperation and camaraderie.
Participants were encouraged to provide feedback on ways to improve future projects.
More time, organization, assistance, and funds were noted. The principal said that she would
have liked even more shots of the community and its people, while the community leader would
have liked more time and organization, and another respondent said that more funds for the
project were needed.
Most of the respondents of the video presentation surveys enjoyed participating in the
public forum. Viewers felt that the video accurately portrayed their local way of life, culture,
and the natural beauty of Pagudpud. One of the free responses indicated this: The picture on the
video had totally depicted the culture we have!!
Some respondents made reference to the introductory presentation on community,
community capacity, and information sharing and knowledge. The general tone of the responses
indicate that many of respondents left the exhibition with positive thoughts about their lives and
community, as well as information about areas that they would like to see better developed.
One respondent said, I think this is an effective tool because in every video it shows that we
should not lose hope to success. Another respondent spoke to the usefulness of the PAE The
project will help the youngster to think many more ideas that will make our town more
progressive. Other responses indicated feelings of pride, being warm hearted, and happiness.
In the additional comments, many people remarked on areas of their community that they
would like to see more progress, the things they think the local government and the people
should do, as well as the impression that the video had on them. The video impacted one
respondent, particularly eliciting the following quotation in the free response question: I like
this video because I learn a great lesson in my life and this lesson will serve as my inspiration to
achieve my dream in life. Another respondent was equally moved: For me, this project has a
11

great impact to us, as students and community people. I think the project aims to motivate us
and give more power to us through knowledge gained
During the presentation itself, many people in the crowd participated in the public
discussion. However, since many people viewed the questionnaire as going to directly to me,
they felt the need to respond in English, which may have contributed to the low number of
respondents.
Commenting on the impact of the photo exhibition overall, one respondent said:
The photos makes us interpret about the cultures and livings of Pagudpud. How we live,
how we work hard just to live enough. How we innovate simple things using our minds just to
turn simple things to valuable ones. How we lead and manage the community to make a more
stronger and a more working community.
The public exhibition enabled empowerment by putting the group members in the center
of attention as the ones to guide their fellow community members through the group process and
lead the discussion through their video. It is at this point that empowerment makes the leap to
leadership development, as those involved with the project gain confidence and start to take
initiative on issues that affect them within the community, sparking dialogue with others to
create change. This kind of activity and discussion within the community builds its capacity.
The diverse groups that participated in the forum provided interesting and varied
feedback. However, a smaller, more intimate group would probably have provided for more in-
depth conversation, possibly more critical in nature. The organization of the forum was ad hoc,
but the process and results were positive. More planning would lead to more effectiveness.
Patience and perseverance on the part of the exhibition conveners is important in this context.

Evaluation as Participation

The importance of rural development to poverty alleviation, food security and global
prosperity is evident. It is also recognized that rural development cannot, and has not, been
successful without community and stakeholder participation in the policy management process.
Evaluation is an important part of the policy management process (J apan International
Cooperation Agency [J ICA] 2004), one that is becoming increasingly more understood as
integral. With this understanding of the processes necessary for rural development policy
management using evaluation as participation mechanism seems facile and expedient.
Evaluation should be moved out of the realm of administrative task keeping to an
interactively participative activity. Participatory evaluation brings citizens and stakeholders
together in the policy management process resulting in true participatory governance. PAE goes
a step further by providing an engaging medium through which participatory evaluation takes
place. Rural development programs that use participatory practices have a higher probability of
meeting desired outcomes because they actively involve those they wish to help.

References

Becker, Howard S. and Ragin, Charles C. 1992. What is a Case?, Exploring the foundations of
social inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bogenschneider, Karen. 1996. An Ecological Risk/Protective Theory for Building Prevention
Programs, Policies, and Community Capacity to Support Youth. Family Relations 45,
no.2: 127-138.
12

Chaskin, Robert J ., Brown, Prudence, Venkatesh, Sudhir, and Vidal, Avis. 2001. Building
Community Capacity. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Cling, J ean-Pierre. 2002. A critical review of the World Bank's stance on poverty reduction.
Pp. 21-50 In New International Poverty Reduction Strategies, Cling, J ean-Pierre,
Razafindrakoto, Mireille and Roubaud, Francois (eds.). London: Routledge.
Dobbs, Lynn and Moore, Craig. 2002. Engaging Communities in Area-based Regeneration: The
Role of Participatory Evaluation. Policy Studies 23, no. : 157-171.
Friedman, Victor J . 2006. Action Science: Creating communities of inquiry in communities of
practice. Pp. 131-143 In Handbook of Action Research, Reason, Peter & Bradbury,
Hilary (eds.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Fujikake, Yoko. 2008. Qualitative Evaluation: Evaluating People's Empowerment. The
Japanese Journal of Evaluation 1, no. 1.
Fults, Gail J . 1993. How Participatory Evaluation Research Affects the Management Control
Process of a Multinational Nonprofit Organization. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Gibson, Christopher and Woolcock, Michael. 2008. Empowerment, Deliberative Development,
and Local-Level Politics in Indonesia: Participatory Projects as a Source of
Countervailing Power. Springer Science, Business Media LLC. Retrieved on December 4,
2008 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s1211600890210
Gobar, Al. 1993. The Need for Community Self-Evaluation. Pp. 18-23 In Economic
Development in Local Government, Kemp, Robert L. (ed.). J efferson: McFarland &
Company, Inc., Publications.
Harper, Douglas. 2001. Changing Works: Visions of a lost agriculture. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Heron, J ohn and Reason, Peter. 2006. The Practice of Co-operative Inquiry: research 'with'
people rather than 'on' people. Pp. 144-154 In Handbook of Action Research, Reason,
Peter and Bradbury, Hilary (eds.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
High, Chris and Nemes, Gusztav. 2007. Social Learning in LEADER: Exogenous, Endogenous
and Hybrid Evaluation in Rural Development. Sociologia Ruralis 47, no. 2: 103-119.
International Fund for Agricultural Development. 2001. Rural Poverty Report 2001: the
challenge of ending rural poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
International Fund for Agricultural Development. 2010. Rural Poverty Report 2011: New
realities, new challenges: new opportunities for tomorrows generation. Rome:
International Fund for Agricultural Development.
J ackson, Edward T. and Kassam, Yusuf. 1998. Knowledge Shared: participatory evaluation in
development cooperation. West Hartford: Kumarian Press, Inc.
J apan International Cooperation Agency - Office of Evaluation and Post Project Monitoring,
Planning and Evaluation Department. 2004. JICA Evaluation Handbook: Practical
Methods for Evaluation. Tokyo: J apan International Cooperation Agency.
Ladkin, Donna. 200). Action Research. Pp. 478-490 In Qualitative Research Practice, Seale,
Clive, Gobo, Giampietro, Gubrium, J aber F., and Silverman, David (eds.). London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Lykes, M. Brinton. 2006. Creative Arts and Photography in Participatory Action Research in
Guatemala. Pp. 269-278 In Handbook of Action Research, Reason, Peter and Bradbury,
Hilary (eds.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
13

Mendis-Millard, Sharmalene & Reed, Maureen. 2007. Understanding Community Capacity
Using Adaptive and Reflexive Research Practices: Lessons From Two Canadian
Biosphere Reserves. Society and Natural Resources 20: 543-559.
Miyoshi, Koichi. 2008. What is Evaluation? Pp. 1-16 In Hyoka-ron wo Manabu Hito no
tameni (For People Learning Evaluation Theory). Miyoshi, Koichi (Ed). Tokyo.
Sekaishisosha.
Miyoshi, Koichi and Stenning, Naomi. 2008. Designing Participatory Evaluation for
Community Capacity Development: A Theory-driven Approach. The Japanese Journal
of Evaluation Studies 8, no. 2: 39-53.
Miyoshi, Koichi andTanaka, Yayoi. 2001. Future of Participatory Evaluation: Concept and
Utilization of Participatory Evaluation. The Japanese Journal of Evaluation Studies 1,
no. 1: 65-78.
National Democratic Institute. 2009. Civic Participation Terminology. Washington, D.C.:
National Democratic Institute.
Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Ragin, Charles. 2000. What is a Case? London: Cambridge University Press.
Razafindrakoto, Mireille and Roubaud, Francois. 2002. Do they really think differently?: the
voice of the poor through quantitative surveys. Pp. 125-147 In New International
Poverty Reduction Strategies, Cling, J ean-Pierre, Razafindrakoto, Mireille and Roubaud,
Francois (eds.). London: Routledge.
Rietbergen-McCracken, J ennifer and Narayan, Deepa. 1998. Participation and Social
Assessment: Tools and techniques. Washington, D.C.: International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development/World Bank.
Sachs, J effrey. 2005. The End of Poverty. New York: The Penguin Press.
Small, Stephan A. 1995. Action-Oriented Research: Models and Methods. Journal of
Marriage and the Family 57, no. 4: 941-955.
Smith, M. F. 1999. Participatory Evaluation: Not working or not tested? American Journal of
Evaluation 20, no. 2: 295-309.
Thurston, Wilfreda E., Farrar, Pip J ., Casebeer, Ann L., and Grossman, J udith C. 2004. Hearing
silenced voices: developing community with an advisory committee. Development in
Practice 14, no. 4: 481-494.
Vernooy, Ronny, Qiu, Sun, & J ianchu, Xu. 2003. Voices for Change: participatory monitoring
and evaluation in China. Ottawa, ON, Canada: International Development Research
Center.
Weisman, Alan. 1998. Gaviotas: A village to reinvent the world. White River J unction: Chelsea
Green Publishing Company.
Weiss, Carol H. 1998. Evaluation. Upper Saddle River, NJ , USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Yin, Robert K. 2003. Case Study Research Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.





14


i
Traditional method of ricecultivation and preparation
ii
Cultural term meaning to work for one another without pay
How to Use Evaluation to
Manage Rural Development
Cindy BANYAI, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Refocus
Institute
Discover your
impact
Why rural development?
1.4 billion people in poverty
2/3 live in rural areas in developing countries
Need to focus on rural areas and poverty
alleviation
2
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Development Approaches
Economic development
Income growth
Investment
Alternative development
Bottom-up
People-centered
Socially-oriented
3
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Policy management
Policies, programs and projects should have
their own logic model
Evaluation should be a continuous part of
management from planning through
implementation and after
4
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Policy management cycle
5
Based on Miyoshi, 2008
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Localization
Rural development policy should be
articulated at all levels national, regional,
local
Each level has:
complete policy structure
Delegated discretion
6
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Localization model
7
Banyai, 2010; based on Miyoshi, 2009
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Logic Theory
Organizes policy, programs, and projects for
management
Provides theory for evaluation
Promotes accountability and effectiveness
Connects tangible inputs and deliverables
with conceptual goals
8
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
JICA Logic Model
9
Miyoshi, 2009; based on JICA 2004
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Evaluation
the systematic collection and assessment of
information related to the outcomes,
operation, or process of a policy structure,
organization or relationship (based on Patton,
2002; Weiss 1998).
10
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Types of research
Focus groups cooperative inquiry
Training
Action research project
Photographs
Video
Plays/storytelling
Metaphor drawing
sculpture
11
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Types of research (cont)
Non-participative data gathering
Surveys
Interviews
Tests
12
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Reporting
Public reporting and exhibition
Internal documents and data management
Establishing management information systems to
use evaluation data
13
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Selecting indicators
Appropriate, adequate and measureable
Convene focus group to decide on indicators
and create relevant questions
Use logic theory
Purpose of evaluation
14
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
DAC 5 Criteria and logic model
15
Miyoshi, 2008
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Choosing the right evaluation
Objective of evaluation
Timeframe
Resources
Audience
16
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Participatory Evaluation
Involves stakeholders in the process of
evaluation in a meaningful way
Reflects the actual situation in a policy
Builds capacity
17
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Who participates?
Intrinsic and periphery stakeholders
depending on objective of evaluation
Impact evaluation - community members
Implementation evaluation project managers
and beneficiaries
18
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Role of the evaluator
Internal
External
Facilitator
19
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Expert
Evaluator
Internal evaluation
department
External - consultant
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
20
Facilitator
Coordinates and
guides stakeholders
through evaluation
process
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
21
Participatory evaluation variations
Empowerment evaluation
Collaborative evaluation
22
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Evaluation as participation
Using participatory evaluation brings
stakeholders into policy management process
Promotes effectiveness of rural development
Builds capacity for future participatory
involvement
23
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Summary
Need to focus on rural development
Follow policy management cycle, use
evaluation
Build theory with logic framework
Participatory evaluation brings clarity and
involves stakeholders
Evaluation is a mode of participation in
governance
24
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
Thanks for your attention!
Please send questions & comments to
photoevaluation@refocusinstitute.com
cindy.banyai@gmail.com
Also visit us on the web!
Website: www.refocusinstitute.com
Facebook: Refocus Institute
Twitter: RefocusInstitut
Blog: Participatory Evaluation Forum Refocus
Institute
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
26
References
Banyai, Cindy. 2010. Community capacity and governance New approaches to
development and evaluation. PhD diss., Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (2010). Rural Poverty Report 2011:
New realities, new challenges: new opportunities for tomorrows generation. Rome
International Fund for Agricultural Development.
Japan International Cooperation Agency - Office of Evaluation and Post Project
Monitoring, Planningand Evaluation Department (2004). JICA Evaluation
Handbook: Practical Methods for Evaluation. Tokyo: Japan International
Cooperation Agency.
Miyoshi, Koichi. (2008). What is Evaluation?. In Miyoshi, Koichi (Ed). Hyoka-ron wo
Manabu Hito no tameni (For People Learning Evaluation Theory). (pp. 1-16). Tokyo.
Sekaishisosha.
Patton, Michael Quinn (2002). QualitativeResearch & Evaluation Methods. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Weiss, Carol H. (1998). Evaluation. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
2011APUJDSRoundtable, CindyBanyai -
Refocus Institute,
www.refocusinsitute.com
27
Photos
Round Table Discussion for Rural Development
February 14 (Monday), 2011




































Photos
Round Table Discussion for Rural Development
February 14 (Monday), 2011



Schedule
Round Table Discussion for Rural Development
February 14 (Monday), 2011



Time Program Presenters Themes
9:30 10:00 Registration
10:00 10:30 Opening and Program Briefing
10:30 12:00
Reports and
discussion
(30 Minutes X 3)
1) Prof. MIYOSHI Koichi
Graduate School of Asia Pacific
Studies, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific
University

2) Prof. HAYASHI Kaoru
Graduate School of International
Cooperation, Bunkyo University

3) Dr. Emil-Dardak
Development Specialist, the World
Bank Office J akarta

Strategic Approach
for Rural
Development
12:15 13:15 Lunch
13:30 14:30
Reports and
discussion
(30 Minutes X 2)
4) Prof. MINAMOTO Yuriko
Graduate School of Governance
Studies, Meiji University

5) Dr. Cindy Banyai
Executive Director, Refocus Institute

Role of
Participatory
Evaluation for Rural
Development
14:30 15:00 Plenary Discussion on Agendas for Group Discussion
15:00 16:45 Group Discussion
17:00 18:00 Reports on the Results of Group Discussion
(20 minute X 3)
18:00 18:15 Plenary Discussions and Closing
18:30 20:00 Reception




List of Participants
Round Table Discussion for Rural Development
February 14 (Monday), 2011

Speakers
Name Present Post/Affiliation
MI YOSHI Koichi
Professor, Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies,
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
HAYASHI Kaoru
Professor, Graduate School of I nternational Cooperation,
Bunkyo University
MI NAMOTO Yuriko
Professor, Graduate School of Governance Studies,
Meiji University
Cindy Lyn BANYAI Executive Director, Refocus I nstitute
Emil Elestianto DARDAK Development Specialist, the World Bank Office J akarta

Participating Students
Name Graduate School Program Major
CHEAMPHAN Viriya Asia Pacific Studies
Doctors
Program
Asia Pacific Studies
HASAN, Eid-Ul Asia Pacific Studies
Doctors
Program
Asia Pacific Studies
ABROROV S. S. Asia Pacific Studies
Masters
Program
I nternational
Cooperation Policy
CHACUAMBA F. V. A. Asia Pacific Studies
Masters
Program
I nternational
Cooperation Policy
CYPRI AN BAMA Nji Asia Pacific Studies
Masters
Program
I nternational
Cooperation Policy
LENG Chhenglay Asia Pacific Studies
Masters
Program
I nternational
Cooperation Policy
HANEEF Mohammad A Asia Pacific Studies
Masters
Program
I nternational
Cooperation Policy
HI NG Kim Asia Pacific Studies
Masters
Program
I nternational
Cooperation Policy
Md. Fazle Rabbi Asia Pacific Studies
Masters
Program
I nternational
Cooperation Policy
MWAJ UMAH Bint Med Asia Pacific Studies
Masters
Program
I nternational
Cooperation Policy
NGUYEN Hoang Phuong Asia Pacific Studies
Masters
Program
I nternational
Cooperation Policy
SEBERA Minega Michel Asia Pacific Studies
Masters
Program
I nternational
Cooperation Policy
LI Xiangqing Management
Masters
Program
Management

List of Participants
Round Table Discussion for Rural Development
February 14 (Monday), 2011

Staffs
Name Present Post/Affiliation
WATANABE Ryoko Administrative Staff, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
I NUI Sayako Administrative Staff, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
SHI MONI SHI Kanako Administrative Staff, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
OKABE Yumiko
Research Assistant, Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies,
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University


Title:
A More Strategic and Participatory
Approach for Rural Development
(Roundtable Discussion Proceedings)
Edited by:
Koichi MI YOSHI ,
Cindy Lyn BANYAI
Yumiko OKABE
Published by:
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
Date: March 10, 2011
Place: Beppu, Oita, J apan