Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Laguna rural social development project
|TDI-Case Study1-LagunaRuralSocialDevelopmentProject.pdf||43.77 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|Title:||Laguna rural social development project|
|LC Subject Headings:||Rural development - Philippines - Laguna|
|Publisher:||Honolulu, Hawaii : East-West Technology and Development Institute|
|Series:||Technology and Development Institute. Case studies in public policy implementation and project management;no. 1|
|Abstract:||The Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRN) pioneered in rural development during the early 1950's using the four-fold program approach emphasizing improved livelihood, education, health, and self-government at the barrio level. By 1971, with its extensive field experience in individual barrios, it moved to experiment how planned change could be effected in a 50-barrio complex. For this, it sought financial assistance from a local foundation, Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP). Their common goal was to validate a rural social development prototype that could be replicated to effect the integrated development of similar communities. Laguna, a Tagalog-speaking province in Southern Luzon, was the site of the experiment. It was a rapidly urbanizing province and had the reputation for being receptive to change and open to experiment. The project, funded by PBSP and managed by PRRM, took place in three years from 1971 to 1974. |
While the project aimed to bring about planned change in a 50-barrio complex with the necessary linkages at the town and provincial level, the case study focuses on the management issues of a development project which confronted PRRM as the implementing agency and PBSP as the funding agency. It illustrates the working relationship and the problems encountered between two development institutions in a social development undertaking. PBSP was not only a funding institution; it was also a development foundation which could share its expertise in project planning and implementation. Both these functions exercised a definite influence on the project implementation process, subtly at first, but later more overtly. The differences which gradually emerged can be traced to divergent views held by the two organizations relating to the philosophy of management and its operationalization. Involved were issues such as field worker recruitment and training in the new community organization (CO) approach, standards of work performance, adequacy of monitoring and technical supervision of the field operations staff, and the administrative capabilities of the PRRM senior staff.
The constant push and pull of forces for the humane and sensitive ordering of working relationships and for the maximization of efficient implementation posed the classic dilemma of professional social development management. By 1974, the high turnover in the field staff, the changes necessitated in management, the conflicting relationships within PRRM and between PRRM and PBSP, and the negative feedback from the target barrios in Laguna contributed to the withdrawal of PRRM from the project and to the subsequent PBSP management takeover. After March 1974 the responsibility shifted to PBSP for seeing to it that the project goals and objectives were achieved.
|Description:||For more about the East-West Center, see http://www.eastwestcenter.org/|
|Pages/Duration:||xi, 77 p.|
|Appears in Collections:||
Technology and Development Institute. Case Studies in Public Policy Implementation and Project Management|
Please email firstname.lastname@example.org if you need this content in ADA-compliant format.
Items in ScholarSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.