IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v13y1996i2p3-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The human capital dimension of collaboration among government, NGOs, and farm families: Comparative advantage, complications, and observations from an Indian case

Author

Listed:
  • R. Alsop
  • R. Khandelwal
  • E. Gilbert
  • J. Farrington

Abstract

Stronger collaboration between government organizations (GOs), NGOs, and rural people has long been advocated as a means of enhancing the responsiveness, efficiency, and accountability of GOs and NGOs. This paper reviews the arguments and evidence for specific types of collaboration for sustainable agricultural development, setting it into the context of Korten's (1980) concept of “learning process.” Taking recent examples from Udaipur District in India, it reviews the experiences and potential of collaboration, arguing that, while informal interaction increases and enriches the fabric of pluralist development, certain strategic decisions often require a degree of formality. These include decisions on the development of human resources — here both the users and providers of services. Moreover, human resource development (HRD) must be viewed in the context of the mandates, aspirations, and systems of accountability and rewards of the institutions concerned. These determine whether institutions develop and expand their own human resources or draw upon those of others by collaborating with them. Individuals engaged in these organizations can be more effectively induced to collaborate with others by combinations of flexibility and appropriate reward systems than they can be forced to do so by instructions or commands. Several conclusions follow: decisions to act together are unlikely to progress unless translated into concrete actions; authority to take local-level decisions in GOs needs strengthening if they are to provide the necessary flexibility; and, although collaboration should in principle be built on the comparative advantage of different types of organization, in practice, each will have to incorporate the skills of the other, at least to some level, if they are to communicate effectively. NGOs and GOs must also enhance their understanding of farmers' ability to make demands on external organizations. Edging towards collaboration is a delicate and painstaking process. Only if many of the above conditions are given due priority will early examples have something to offer to the numerous NGOs, GOs and international agencies wishing to learn from them. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Suggested Citation

  • R. Alsop & R. Khandelwal & E. Gilbert & J. Farrington, 1996. "The human capital dimension of collaboration among government, NGOs, and farm families: Comparative advantage, complications, and observations from an Indian case," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 13(2), pages 3-12, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:13:y:1996:i:2:p:3-12
    DOI: 10.1007/BF01540688
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF01540688
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF01540688?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. William Lacy, 1996. "Research, extension, and user partnerships: Models for collaboration and strategies for change," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 13(2), pages 33-41, March.
    2. Shamim Ahmed, 2009. "Understanding the Relationship between Government and BRAC in Implementing WASH Programme," Working Papers id:2156, eSocialSciences.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:13:y:1996:i:2:p:3-12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.