| dc.description.abstract | There has been tremendous upsurge in writings on rural development during last decade. Incidently the economic policies followed during this period in various countries of south asia have intensified the contradictions in developmental field. The major thrust of public intervantions has been not to resolve these contradictions, instead to contain them or dilute their implications which might destabilities the social structure. Academic have contributed to this situation but pursuing answers to the social problrms defined in the same paradigm in hich planners have done so.
I have tried to dispute this tendency in rural development research by idendifying few key areas in which dominant research paradigm needed to be radically altered. These areas are as follows. a) Rogessian vice in literature on technology generations and diffusion. b) standardised design of institution and organizations to serve dissimilar ecological concepts. c) excessive reliance on credit as instrument of mobilising technological change without in any way modifying the package. d) Neglect of small farming and landless household in dry regions which failed to attract market forces, bureaucracy, academist and political attention, all alike. e) Growth centra bias in invesment policies which like other policies rested on the assumption of trickle down. f) Trainning methodoligies which qwere highly alienated from the real life problem context ( as illustrated by excessive emphasis on PERT/ CPM and g) Recent revival of international concern towards so called 'wastelands' and their privatization. Some other ares that need attention are: what should be the structure of district collectorate for 2000 AD, sole of collactor and non- official bodies in local level planning. A graeter debate is needed on this subject to redefine priorities in research and action. | en_US |
