A critique of the blue print model to development planning

The Blue print model of development is also known as the Top Down approach model of development or the trickle down model. Ukpong E (1993) argues that the Top –Down approach saw development process as a paternalistic and charity activity of the government. According to Iqtidar Ali Shah and Neeta Baporikar (2012) the top down approach to development planning is characterized by the government directing the entire process of formulating, implementing policies and the people have a passive position in the process and rarely consulted.  Bond (2012) defines it as an approach which is based on the concepts of rationality and reductionism. Prescribed steps define the stages of the project cycle; experts design and control; detailed planning at the beginning specifies objectives, targets, outputs, resources and schedules; local institutions are bypassed if they have inadequate capacity and the job of management is to implement as closely as possible to the plan. . Cristóvão and Koehnen etal (2012) states that blue print is a conventional approach based on a number of key assumptions and principles there are clearly defined and generally accepted objectives; there is a detailed and precise knowledge of the process to be implemented in order to reach the objectives; there is the political will to use the available power and resources; and there is a predetermined timetable and well-known resources The blue model is rigid and is not suitable for the complex and diverse environments. The approach gives emphasis to the technocrat’s ability to design but it does not consider the beneficiaries contribution. This paper gives a critique of the blue print model in development planning.

Jide Ibietan and Oghator Ekhosuehi (2012) observed that defining development planning is a mammoth tasks, the term has been defined differently by many scholars. Daggash (2008) saw it as a long term integrated comprehensive national plan of actions: that indicates the trajectory of national growth and development. Egonmwan and Ibodje (2001:52-53) posited that development planning entails “a consciously directed activity with pre-determined goals and predetermined means to achieve the set goals”. Jide Ibietan and Oghator Ekhosuehi (2012) views planning as essential for allocation or utilization of scarce resources to improve the standard of living of the citizens. According to Maxwell and Conway (2000) planning means different things, depending on context. It can refer broadly to any willed intervention in which planners define goals, specify inputs, and present a model of causality linking activities to goals. This can cover sectoral plans (industrial planning), multi-sectoral or thematic planning (food security planning), or national, macroeconomic planning (five-year plans or centrally planned economies)

Cristóvão and Koehnen etal (2012) cited that blue print model is agency centred , programmes are planned from the inside to the outside; planners assess and define needs and problems and determine objectives and courses of action. According to Maxwell and Conway Blueprint planning uses technical specialists to devise a scientific plan in the capital city, which is then implemented according to a rigid timetable; process planning, by contrast, is bottom-up in nature, organic, flexible, and action oriented. The blue print model does not give room to the beneficiaries to air their views in the programme design. This exclusion of the beneficiaries has many problems for projects or programmes. Communities see such projects as imposition and in certain instances participation in the projects is half hearted. Such programme planning does not usually address the needs of the beneficiaries. According to Iqtidar Ali Shah and Neeta Baporikar (2012) there is need to adopt a people orientated approach because this will bring more peace and development. Jennings (2000) defines participation as the involvement by local

population in the creation, content and conduct of a program recognition and use of local capacities and avoids the imposition of priorities from the outside. It increases the odds that a program will be on target and its results will more likely be sustainable. Participatory development is driven by a belief in the importance of entrusting citizens with the responsibility to shape their own future. Some scholars like Neeta Baporikar and Iqtidar Ali Shah (2012) cite the Arab Spring as being caused by the young generation demand for participation in the country’s governance and resources and allocation processes. The Arab Spring refers to the revolutions from 2010 to the present including countries like Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Egypt and Syria. There is need to place beneficiaries at the center of the development plan this yields ownership and unity of purpose for the project.

The blue print model does not usually come up with sustainable development projects. According to the Resource Institute (1992) from the examination that was done by World Bank of 12 projects they had funded they concluded that economic sustainability had been because of participation by key beneficiaries. UN Conference on Environment and Development (1992) Principle number 22 cited that in order for states to achieve sustainable development there was need to in enhance local people’s active participation throughout the project cycle. It states “Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.” Birgegard’s (1987 pp6-7) lamented that ‘Sadly, the “control-oriented,” compartmentalized government bureaucracies with centralized decision making hardly match the prerequisites of effective management of [integrated rural development] projects.’

Cristóvão and Koehnen etal (2012) cited that many development projects fail because beneficiaries do not truly participate in the assessment of needs and identification of problems and solutions are often overlooked while their store house information, experience and analysis is usually neglected. Beneficiaries are regarded as mere recipients rather than creators of progress and change. In Zimbabwe ESAP gives a good example of blue print approach. The intended beneficiaries of ESAP were not consulted or sensitized about the programme. The programme resulted in swelling numbers of children out of school, people dying of curable diseases in their homes and women giving birth at home or in scotch carts on their way to health centers in rural areas. The quality of health care deteriorated at most hospitals especially in rural areas. Thus deaths were more in rural areas compared to towns (Dhliwayo 2001). The food riots and looting in 1995 gives testimony of how people were not consulted about what the programme entailed and people were not given a chance to prepare for it. Similarly in Nigeria according Jide Ibietan and Oghator Ekhosuehi (2012) Nigerian economy wobbled, unemployment and poverty rates increased as a result of this non-consultative policy option by the government. The beneficiaries of the program were not consulted hence they did not own the programme, the state was viewed with animosity. Analysing the Nigerian Vision 2020 Development Initiative Daggash concluded “that the goals are achievable through the Cooperation and collaboration of all stakeholders. The stakeholders including the Nigerian masses may not have been carried along in the planning process, yet their collaboration/cooperation are required, what a joke.” Similarly The Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-economic Transformation (ZIM ASSET) is another Policy blunder which the masses have not been consulted and are scantly aware of. ZIM ASSET (2013p ix) is an economic blueprint which was developed through consultation of mainly ZANU PF political leadership and private sector and is void of ordinary people contribution.

The Blue Print approach is characterized by hierarchy and control. According to Flower (1997) more controls means less flexibility which is bad for participatory development. Looking at the ZIM ASSET, ZANU PF controls the economic initiative which makes it difficult for other stakeholders with different ideas to input in it. According to ZIM ASSET the economic plan is guided and controlled by the ZANU PF Manifesto and the Presidential Vision. A concoction of stringent policies was outlined making it difficult to change to suit complex and unpredictable socio- economic and political environment. According Maxwell and Conway (2000) most plans fail there are dependent on coercive rather than institutional means of enforcing them in the face of opposition to planning decisions. In this context any criticism to the ZIM ASSET is viewed with skepticism and scorn. The blue print approach is more of a self serving plan which is not subject to regular checks by the Civil Society. This approach does not allow planning to come from the bottom, planning is directly from the top and the people at the bottom are there to implement.

Blue Print approach is rigid it prescribes managers to work as closely and dogmatically according to the dictates of the plan. Cristóvão and Koehnen etal (2012) argue that the blue print approach is too uniform it does not regard socio-cultural environment, the particular circumstances in which project implementation occurs, and the characteristics of the different clientele groups. Villagers in Guruve in Nyangavi and Mupfurutsa area resisted a $250 million German funded irrigation scheme project barring the NGOs and Agritex officers claiming that the project had been imposed on them Herald 22 July 1995. Similarly the in Gokwe German Agro turned a community borehole into a solar powered borehole without consultation with the community for Machakata Primary School; this led to serious conflict between the NGO, school and the community. The community wanted the solar panels to be removed. According Cristóvão and Koehnen etal (2012), one of the major factors that have slowed human development is the lack of people’s participation in the design and implementation of policies and programmes that affect their lives. Unless people become the protagonists of their own development, no amount of investment or provision of technology will improve standards of living in a sustainable way.

The top- down approach might come with wrong problem identification especially when planning for the poor rural people. According to Chambers (1983) when identifying the problems affecting rural areas, governments usually ignore and overlook essential, complex and diverse realities of the rural poor people. With this, the government and its agencies take the centre stage in identification, analysis and evaluation of rural development policy problems. This in most cases lead to the identification of wrong problems for right people. Ukpong (1993) shares the same sentiments he argues that operating in distant administrative capitals results in the inability to problem identification. The beneficiaries should be at the center of the planning. The inclusion of the rural poor people in contrast means that, there will be a better understanding of the problems, since they are the ones experiencing rural poverty. Thus, identified courses of actions will suit the problem being tackled.

The Blue Print approach is usually used to facilitate political agendas and sometimes it does not help the intended beneficiaries. Policy Planners who are usually politicians makes use of the blue print approach to developmental planning to garner the support of the electorate. These politicians cum policy planners play a great role coining plans that should be implemented without alterations at the bottom such as the ZIM ASSET. Michael, (1993 pg 52) politicians are more inclined to ideologies than the technocrats. Uphoff, (1997 pg 61) observed that, “In Africa, many politicians at all levels of governance take advantage of the people’s ignorance of the process of policy- planning to get away with all manner of dubious explanations of their actions”. The Indigenous Economic empowerment act is another case in point which is shrouded in obscure and controversial implementation for example it’s not clear how Employee Share Ownership Trust will be shared among workers. The ordinary people are usually excluded from development planning since their sentiments and spontaneous actions would compel the responsible authorities to institute certain policies. Cleverland and Lubic (1992) stated that “Development is a complex process it cannot be left in the hands of centralized power”. A disconnection between the planners and the plan beneficiaries can serious undermine development

The blue print model is resourced by central funds which are hardly enough and it rarely uses local people and their assets. It has a tendency of creating dependence syndrome in that it does everything for the people without empowering the people to do it for themselves. Boreholes are drilled without training community borehole minders. Most of the boreholes break down due to either sheer vandalism or improper use since no trainings will be conducted. Market stalls are erected without proper consultation and most of these are not utilized. Another example has been the building of growth points for the rural people in hope that these centers would be utilized by the people and achieve development. Wekwete (1988) observed that growth points received state support to invest in energy; communications; water supply and; social and administrative infrastructure. It can be argued that this support was however inconsistent and insufficient enough to promote industrialization in rural areas.

Blue print approach to development planning approach to staff development is didactic rather than field based action learning (Maxwell and Conway 2000). The implementing team is usually taught the classroom method how to implement the projects no process planning is put place very strict deadlines are the order of the day. Implementation is rapid with the aim to comply with deadlines. Budgets are utilized towards finishing the projects timely.

Communication within the blue print approach is vertical thus orders come from the top while a report goes up. In bottom-up approach there is mutual learning and sharing experience. Errors according Chambers (1993) are buried while in participatory approach errors are embraced and provide a learning process which leads to modifications of the plan. Rules, manuals and job descriptions are employed in planning, implementing and monitoring of projects. Management’s role is planning, commanding, coordinating and controlling the project design (Murray 1992). Those at the bottom are responsible for implementing and reporting. This bureaucratic relationship makes it difficult for constructive criticism to remodel plans. The structure is composed of the head office, followed by the province, the district, the ward and then the village. Reporting and communication has to follow these strict path and protocol hence slowing down the process.

The Blue print approach is useful in emergencies were decisions are suppose to be made timeously. Emergences do not warrant consultation with beneficiaries rather than coming up with quick solutions. The Tokwe – Mukosi flooding did not require the beneficiaries’ opinions and preference on what type of shelter and how they were going to be lodged. The urgency of the matter did not indulge the beneficiaries such luxuries. Similarly the displaced people in Sudan and Syria have not been consulted NGOs giving humanitarian aid on their preferences. Likewise blue prints have been used in response of diseases like, H1N1 flu, cholera, malaria and HIV /AIDS. The Health Ministry at national level has designed blue prints in cases of outbreaks henceforth planning for such disasters and an emergence rarely requires the inputs of beneficiaries. Cristóvão and Koehnen etal (2012) observed that in emergency interventions where strong management style is required to attain objectives in a timely and highly organized manner the blue print approach is desirable there is less need for clientele inputs.

Donors approach to funding projects has been blue print in its orientation and this has led to huge gaps in development of LDCs. Prescribed projects and programmes are imposed on LDCs which have no option but to take up the projects. Planning is a privilege of the Donors who have the money while NGOs or LDCs are reduced to implementing partners. According Maxwell and Conway (2012, p 6.) between 1989 and1994 the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) blundered by prescribing a plan for primary education to Cambodia which later caused conflicts with Government. The authors concluded that there was need for lack partner ownership of sectoral planning.

While the blue print approach has its flaws such as its exclusion of the beneficiaries at the planning stage however full beneficiary participation is not guaranteed even by other approaches such as the bottom –up approach. Power dynamics always comes into play among the beneficiaries. According to Narayan (2000) within the rural people themselves, there are asymmetrical relationships which may affect in problem identification and analysis of their social problems. According to his study of Bangladesh, the poorest people in rural areas had little contribution in government than the well – up people in referenda, elections and opinion polls. Since community members are not homogeneous there is different power relations in existence and the most dominant ideas and influential people’s views prevail.

Including beneficiaries in development planning who are illiterate or are not that technical pose difficulty for planners to integrate the information. According to Cristóvão and Koehnen etal (2012) the rural and the poor who need to become active actors in their development to enable them improve their livelihood are often beyond easy reach. They are generally illiterate, but have ideas, knowledge and practices shaped by deep rooted cultural norms, traditions, and experiences and different from those of development workers.

Bond (2012) argues that an integration of the blue print and bottom –up approach is the most effective way of development planning. He gives different scenarios to integrate the two thus he states A programme could be designed to have a blueprint approach for a few years to establish quickly and efficiently improved infrastructure, necessary for the functioning of basic services and production. Then this could be followed by a long-term programme to work with the people of the area in experimenting and developing ways to improve livelihoods. It is in this context that the blue print approach should be employed in isolation synergizing it with other methods makes it formidable planning method.

In conclusion the Blue approach is highly flawed in that it is rigid, discriminatorily exclusive in that beneficiary participation in the planning is disregarded it can be summarized as directive planning opposed to enabling planning. Using blue print model of development planning does not yield sustainable projects in most cases because it is divorced from beneficiary ownership projects or programmes. Budgetary rigidity and bureaucracy characterize the planning and implementation of the projects. Such a model is fundamental in civil engineering where the environment is stable. The blue print model is important in disaster management planning and when dealing with technical situation such as medicine.

Bibliography

Bond, R. (2012) , Lessons for the large-scale application of process approaches from Sri Lanka, in Gatekeeper Series No. 75.

Chambers, R. (1983) Rural Development: Putting the Last First, Harlow, U.K, Longman.

Cleveland, H. and Lubic, M. (1992). ‘The future of development’ in Kirdar, U. (Eds),

Changes: threat or opportunity for human progress? UN, New York.

Cristóvão and Koehnen etal (2012), ‘Developing and delivering extension programmes’ www.fao.org/docrep/w5830e/w5830e09.html, accessed 26/03/14.

Daggash, M. S. (2008), “Why Nigeria Needs a National Development Master Plan”, in Vanguard  (October 14).

Dhliwayo, R. (2001), The Impact of Public Expenditure Management Under ESAP on Basic Social Services: Health and Education, University of Zimbabwe, Department of Economics.

Egonmwan, J. A. and Ibodje, S.W.E (2001), Development Administration: Theory and Practice. Scientific and Technical, Benin City: Resyin (Nig.) Company Ltd.

Ibietan J and Ekhosuehi O (2013), ‘Trends in development planning in Nigeria: 1962 to 2012’ in Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, Volume 15, No.4

Maxwell S and Conway T (20120, “New Approached to Planning’ in OED working Papers Series No. 14, Summer.

Murray, R. (1992), “Towards a flexible state.” in IDS Bulletin Vol. 23.

Neeta Baporikar and Iqtidar Ali Shah,  (2012). ‘Participatory Approach to Development in Pakistan’ in Journal of Economic and Social Studies, Vol 2, No 1.

Shah I and Baporikar N (2012), ‘Participatory Approach to Development in Pakistan’ in Journal of Economic and Social Studies Vol 2, No 1.

The Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-economic Transformation (ZIM ASSET) 2013

Ukpong EA (1993),’ The Constraints of NGOs’ Operational Flaws on Rural Development Initiatives in Nigeria’ in Journal of Social Development in Africa (1993), 8,1,51.72

Wekwete, K. H. (1988), “Rural Growth Points in Zimbabwe —prospects for the future” in Journal of Social Development in Africa , 3 (2).

World Resources Institute (1992), “A guide to the global environment” in. The world resources institute, New York Oxford University Press.