[Tlc] Muscat reply

[justinm at ucr.edu]

Mike, Biff, et al:  It is important not to lose sight of
large-scale 
programs that did not have a "rural development" or "tambon"
label, but 
yielded substantial benefits over wide areas populated mostly
by the "rural 
poor." I refer to the major highway construction, feeder road
building, 
water-sealed privies, malaria spraying, regional agricultural
and vocational 
schools, education generally, health facilities, etc. some of
which date 
back to the 1950s. In most countries with large rural
hinterlands, the sine 
qua non for raising incomes has been the ground transportation
facilities. 
Irrigation and agricultural research and extension have also
been helpful, 
not to mention the marketing role of the private sector. 
Local control over 
local expenditure budgets is no doubt important politically
and for the 
sense of some local empowerment. But the contribution such
mini-budgets can 
make to long-run economic improvement is small and must be
kept in 
perspective, interesting though such programs are to social
scientists.
Bob Muscat

______________
Dr. Justin McDaniel
Dept. of Religious Studies
2617 Humanities Building
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521
951-827-4530
justinm at ucr.edu