Social Aspects of Rural Accessibility and Changing Development Context
Submitted to
Framework for the Inclusion of Social Benefits in Transport Planning
TRL Limited
Old Wokingham Road
Crowthorne
Berkshire
RG45 6AU
United Kingdom
Thomas R Leinbach
University Research Professor
Department of Geography
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0027
Email: leinbach@uky.edu
February, 2003
1
Introduction
In response to this opportunity to reflect on social benefits and accessibility I have several
objectives that I will pursue. First I would like to further examine a theme discussed
recently (Leinbach, 2000) on the changing nature and context of development. Too often
we fail to scrutinize rural transport within its developmental situation and context. This
is important with respect to the stimulation and capturing of social as well as economic
benefits. Several issues need to be recognized within this perspective. Second, I will
review briefly some aspects of the social benefits of accessibility. Third, it is important
to continue to point up areas of limited knowledge which must be probed by new
research. Some needed directions are suggested. In this I will attempt to provide some
insights on the measurement of social access that could be utilized in a general way but
must be sensitive to local resources and constraints. Since much of my work has been
carried out within Southeast Asia, and especially Indonesia, I will use my experience
largely within this regional laboratory to provide examples and draw observations.
Rethinking the Theory and Practice of Development
Development theory is in the throes of change and new interpretations abound.
Indeed some would argue that development studies have entered a period of crisis.
Mainstream frameworks dominant in postwar development studies seem unable to meet the
developing world’s most compelling challenges. Yet newer alternative frameworks, such as
popular development and sustainable development, remain relatively undeveloped and
unexplored (Brohman, 1996). Researchers are only now beginning to grabble with a
conceptual framework to guide related investigations. What is clear is that place context,
power and empowerment, the role of the state, institutions, gender relations and above all
2
people and family oriented change must be central to our efforts to improve access
(Friedmann, 1992).
The last two decades have seen unprecedented changes in the economic, political
and social fabric of most of Southeast Asia. Traditional patterns of livelihood have been
dramatically transformed, and this is likely to continue. Rural situations continue to be
transformed as a result of processes of urbanization, industrialization, trade and
technological change. While agriculture of course remains in many ways the heart of
development in rural areas, the viability of such places must increasingly be viewed in terms
of non-agricultural developments because of the need for increased employment and the
impacts and linkages to the broader global economy. There are indeed some arguments
suggesting that the end of the peasantry has come to Southeast Asia even though there is an
enduring existence of rural production and of the social and economic circuits of life and
livelihood, which accompany it. But the rural producers of today are productive and
enduring only insofar as they have moved from being peasants into new and different
worlds of production, and consequently, of social and economic life. In fact the rural labor
force has been radically reconstituted through its own agency and that of the broader forces
of change (Elson, 1997, 240). Yet it is clear that village economies are undergoing dramatic
change and can no longer uniformly be characterized as isolated, inward looking and selfsufficient based on solely agriculture. This is especially true of villages situated on the
fringes of urban areas. Even for those villages more remote transport improvements have
provided stronger linkages to production and export centers. As the forces of globalization
continue to expand and isolation is broken down, new opportunities and forms of
employment have become more and more accessible to rural populations. The quest for
3
new employment may be driven by a dream to own consumer goods, to obtain necessary
funds for children’s education or simply the need to insure family survival in a precarious
agricultural environment. It is almost a truism that the livelihood patterns and strategies of
families increasingly assume non-agricultural or non-farm employment (e.g. Ashley and
Maxwell, 2001; Start, 2001). Despite a growing literature on the non-farm economy and its
associated employment there is much we do not know about how it relates to rural
accessibility. The relevance here is that a stronger non-farm rural economy will certainly
drive further the demand for social needs, especially education and medical care, which are
attached to transport in a variety of ways.
Two other aspects of the current development context need to be considered. First
in Indonesia as well as elsewhere NGOs are an increasingly important aspect of the
development impress. In recent years international organizations and state agencies have
recognized the cultural sensitivity, innovativeness, and dedication of such groups. NGOs as
a mechanism for influencing change related to social benefits of transport may be important
because of their flexibility, shallow hierarchies which allow effective collaboration, speed of
operation and ability to respond quickly to changing circumstances. Another advantage
offered by NGOs is their ability to decentralize and debureaucratize development efforts.
The small size of many of these NGOs has allowed them to develop direct linkages to local
organizations and communities. Their role in understanding how development (and
transport delivery as a part of this) happens through village development committees and
local power structures is not inconsequential.
At a broader scale in Indonesia and elsewhere the matter of the decentralization of
decision-making is now a high priority. Decentralization has many implications for rural
4
transport and its social benefits. Now well into its second year of implementation,
Indonesia’s ambitious decentralization program has made uneven progress and some would
argue has even democratized corruption (Borsuk, 2003). While some employees have been
transferred to regional government payrolls, considerable work needs to be made in
establishing the necessary fiscal, legal, and administrative framework for successful
decentralization (Alm, Aten and Bahl, 2001). Lack of political consensus has prevented the
national inter-agency decentralization coordinating team from making progress in designing
and implementing a plan for strengthening the regions’ institutions and capacities
(Athukorala, 2002, 145).
The Impact of Rural Access: A Recapitulation
In some ways the exact role of transport in rural development remains ambiguous.
But we know that especially where transport is a 'binding constraint' or is operating in an
environment of ‘prior dynamism', i.e. where factors are ripe, it may act as a catalytic
agent (Wilson, 1966). A reliance on the simple supportive connection between transport
and development has thwarted a deeper understanding of the richness of the connection
between the two. Simple static relationships which show that wealth is highly correlated
with mobility clearly do not explain the dynamic effects of providing transport in
particular circumstances nor do they penetrate and illuminate the complex human fabric
of development circumstances (Howe and Richards, 1984). Rarely have we been able to
execute true ex ante and ex post analyses over significant spatial and temporal frames.
What is required then is a shift from impact emphasis to an improved understanding of
personal mobility. We do know that transport strongly affects everyday needs (e.g. Howe,
1996; Edmonds, 1998). Yet there are few models which capture the needs of personal
5
mobility in dynamic rural environments which we are witnessing today and allow the
recognition of various contextual factors and especially social concepts. But specifically
there has been a lack of attention to transport issues which take into account family as
well as individual needs. The critical importance of the family as a unit of analysis in
development has become clear.
We suspect that transport is critically interwoven with communication and social
change and moreover that access has some effect on employment searches and basic
needs acquisition, including the delivery of health services (Leinbach, 1983a; Leinbach,
1983b). However despite the results that document these impacts there are many
situations where intended impact falls far short of our expectations. We still know all too
little about the ways in which rural transport should be improved and how to deliver
benefits to more needy populations. One reason for this lack of understanding of
transport needs and impact is related to the biases associated with rural poverty.
Essentially development needs are more easily seen near urban areas and along main
roads while more remote and inaccessible areas and peoples are ignored (Chambers,
1983; Chambers, 1997).
Local context and environment have a considerable effect on the way roads affect
economic and social change. But the evidence can’t sustain continuing optimism over the
positive impact of roads on poverty. Noteworthy here are the rather widespread
incidences of land consolidation, more landless workers, decline of local industries in the
face of outside competition, and the acceleration of out-migration. Third, road
improvements, in contrast to new roads, rarely lead to sharp decreases in the cost of
transport, which is critical to stimulate demand. In addition, land tenancy is often a major
6
factor in determining who benefits. If the land is unevenly distributed, the landless or
land poor will receive little benefit. But if land is more evenly distributed, road projects
will serve poorer households more effectively. We also know that extent to which
development takes place is critically dependent upon the capacity of the local and
regional economy to respond and reallocate resources. Roads fail to achieve desired
outcomes where they have not affected the major determinants of the local political
economy nor resolved the basic problems of a predominantly agrarian system.
Gender does play a role in transport impact in a variety of ways. For example in
India, rural women commuting daily between factory and village were a critical part of a
larger set of factors which together accounted for industrial decentralization (Saith,
1992). Rural road investments in Bangladesh show that generally the poorest groups,
especially destitute women, do benefit as it is from this segment of society that workers
are recruited for intensive labor construction efforts. Yet concerns for leakages in the
resources made available undermine this positive benefit. From this experience it is also
clear that owner operated transport and especially affordable and reliable transport
services are the essential mechanism through which broader changes take place. But
political influences through regulation of fares and other constraints can undermine this
effect. More broadly it is clear that there exists strong biases against asset-poor villagers’
realization of benefits from road investments compared with the wealthier strata of the
village population (Howe, 1994).
Too often the analysis of the impact of improved accessibility has focused only on
economic criteria. Yet just as commodities flow over the linkages of a road network so
too do ideas and news about innovations, technology and new techniques. Results from
7
Indonesia show a comparison of the impact of improved roads between urban fringe and
more remote locations. The findings suggest that improved access did have an effect on
the search for employment. But five times as many respondents in the urban fringe
groups, as opposed to the remote rural groups, claimed that transport improvements were
influential in the search for employment (Leinbach,1983b).
Location of employment is clearly important as it affects women in the labor
force. Decentralized approaches to production in which little mobility is required of a
female labor force a consequence of can have huge benefits for both the economic and
social aspects of transport improvements. Female labor mobility is obviously related to
productive and reproductive activities through the family life cycle and the gendered
division of labor (Watkins, Leinbach and Falconer, 1993). But how much do we really
know about the way in which transport deficiencies affect the role of women in
development (e.g. Bryceson and Howe, 1993)?
Finally it is clear that while rural road infrastructure in Indonesia and elsewhere
has expanded tremendously over the last two decades, there are still many communities
that lie in an access shadow. Moreover despite upgraded physical networks in some rural
areas, affordable, flexible and reliable transport services are still a rarity (Repogle,1991).
The regularity, cost, and efficiency of the services is in some ways more important in
influencing access to social services and employment acquisition.
Rethinking Approaches to the Engagement of Transport in Contemporary Rural
Development
As I have noted elsewhere what we need ultimately is a reoriented conceptual
framework which effects a more meaningful approach to the ways in which transport
8
must engage nuances of a dynamic rural development (Leinbach, 2000). Such a
framework must of course explicitly incorporate economic but equally important political
and social considerations. It must close the conceptual gap between the traditional ways
development and the use of the transport system has been viewed and the socio-economic
reality of the development situations in which the transport system functions. In this
effort it is clear that micro-scale approaches are going to be much more useful than the
macro-scale, holistic views of transport relationships in development. How do we begin
to approach the construction of a new framework for understanding transport in
development context?
As we review the evidence, the degree to which livelihoods are improved is
critically dependent upon the capacity of the local and regional economy, and especially
its institutions to respond and particularly to reallocate resources. Transport, in a variety
of ways, must be central in this process. A major emphasis must be the aspect of nonfarm employment as overwhelming evidence points to the seminal role of such income in
both family advancement and survival strategies. While clearly landlessness and
ecological decline must be addressed in many areas in others a more rewarding approach
will be to investigate and show how social capital, i.e. population skills, etc, can be
developed through effective delivery of critical ingredients—one of which is transport.
Entrepreneurship and physical access to local advisory services is one example.
Transport relations can be inserted into this theme in several ways. For example, how do
various barriers (social, economic, political and physical) constrain individuals from
seeking non-agricultural employment and engaging in particular opportunities? Indeed
9
the development of transport enterprises and employment in the transport sector are key
topics worth exploring in this connection.
The focus on adequate transport within the changing dynamics of urban-rural
relations is important as the household is restructured and becomes more diversified.
Genders and generations renegotiate their respective roles. One useful approach toward
achieving some greater understanding of small-scale development situations and especially
the role of access may be to explore the utility of variations of the political economy theme.
The objective here is to learn how individual producer incentives and accumulation could be
enhanced. In this analysis the key actors and decision-making processes and institutions at
the village level may be isolated as dominant elements in our new understanding. It is
critically important as we use transport to foment development that we recognize local
power structures and decision processes.
Related to this theme of non-farm employment and activities (and social extensions)
is the intriguing concept of the family mode of production (FMP) as advanced by Lipton
(1984). In his view the FMP is oriented toward capturing the flexibilities of resource use in
household forms of production whether in agriculture or non-farm economic activities
(Ellis, 1993). The key to understanding the family mode of production (FMP) is fungibility
or "the extent to which a rise or fall in the availability of a 'resource' can be treated as if it
were a change in cash funds, and thus converted swiftly, conveniently and without loss into
a change in whichever input, to which activity, maximizes benefit" (Lipton, 1984:191).
Thus the peasant household enterprise (PHE) as a unit of both production and reproduction,
and in exercising control over both labor and capital, may easily and efficiently shift
resources internally in response to changing conditions. Capital and labor resources will
10
meet productive or consumptive needs according to priorities, say by restricting immediate
consumption for investment in a petty productive enterprise, or using petty capital to meet
basic household needs during a reproductive crisis. This can be done through shifts in
resource allocation in time (i.e. between seasons), space (i.e. from one area of production to
another), and/or within the family (i.e. between generations, siblings, etc.). Thus, in the
“FMP there exists extended fungibility (EF) of resources between production, preparation of
consumables...and reproduction of the family’s capacity for both of these” (Lipton, 1984:
191-2).
In Lipton’s terms, therefore, where peasant households operate simultaneously a
number of income-generating activities ranging from subsistence production, petty trade
and services, and petty commodity production, to agricultural and off-farm wage labor,
the flexibility of resource use is considerable and allocation decisions rather complex.
Distance from the political core (i.e. urban areas) also allows for the growth of the FMP
in rural areas at a greater rate than in urban ones. The survival of the FMP, particularly in
rural areas of the developing world, and the decisions people make in order to survive.
He also stresses the importance of broadening the definition of FMP to include the
multiple sets of tasks and activities that a family (and its members) engages in for
survival. His work provides an important set of analytics, particularly the concept of
fungibility and extended fungibility, which is well worth examining in an empirical
context.
A key final point here is that fungibility and extended fungibility are
spatial concepts. Resource allocation is a spatial phenomenon and is dependent on, but
also modified by, the spatial contexts in which social actors engage in FMP enterprises. A
11
FMP enterprise, therefore, may choose to shift its human and capital resources spatially
to deal with spatial factors, a new road or the growth or contraction of their community,
for example. They may modify their behavior in relation to the influx of state agents
during particular periods of time (i.e. during growing seasons when extension agents are
more active or during periods of social unrest in urban areas). The spatial extent of a
FMP enterprise is thus fluid in time as it is in space.
Given the clear importance of fungibility an effort must be made to relate this to
household travel demand and personal mobility needs. A basic deficiency of current
knowledge is that reliance on market demand models has led to an undifferentiated view
of the benefits and costs of work performance to household members. In this way the
issue of gender bias at the intra-household level does not arise. The fallacy here is the
lack of understanding of the transport needs of the subsistence-producing household,
which may allocate its survival tasks on the basis of contextual factors, rather than
optimizing market principles. Case studies in Indonesia have begun to demonstrate the
ways in which fluidity in economic and social options are constrained or removed by
transport infrastructure and services (Leinbach, 2003a).
Delivering Infrastructure and Measuring Benefits
The delivery of infrastructure takes on many forms but among the most intriguing
are those tied to so-called poverty alleviation efforts. Indonesia’s Cash Incentive
Program attempted to provide income injections to the poorest districts while
constructing new or rehabilitating old infrastructure that would deliver long term benefits.
The construction of rural roads have been the most important aspect of the program.
Evidence from an analysis of a sample of road projects reveals that projects drew
12
regularly scheduled mini-bus services after the upgrading. This broad expansion of
accessibility is sometimes referred to as “the Colt Revolution” in Indonesia where
Japanese manufactured Colt passenger vans form the vehicle stock for the services. But,
in addition, other forms of mobility emerged that had impacts on the movement of goods
and marketing of crops. Before the roads, vehicles could not enter many of the areas and
transportation service was irregular. But clearly, even after regularly scheduled services
were delivered, many families still find such services too costly and continue to use
traditional means of transport such as bicycles and back loads.
The above evidence emphasizes the principle that the nature of the environment
also greatly affects the impact. We often tend to forget that impact of a road depends
upon the physical, social and economic environment through which it passes. Poor
development status and a low incidence of off-farm employment (as noted above) and
lagging agricultural environments where precipitation is highly variable can have a strong
effect on what impact occurs as a result of road upgrading. As an example in the wet
season, commerce is interrupted but in the dry season traders and consumers are more
mobile. In addition the expansion of cash crops –such as simple root crops—was quite
common in many areas as a result of a new road placement where previously crops could
not be marketed without the road. More dramatic changes would certainly result in an
area where a diversified set of activities and stronger non-farm incomes were present.
In many cases a general expansion of mobility occurred—distinct increases in trip
frequencies to markets were measured. But especially important was a greater awareness as
well as increased use of simple medical facilities and especially family planning information
available through these simple rural health posts called posyandu (Leinbach, 2003b). Small
13
local businesses expanded after construction—but many declined and disappeared in a
very competitive environment where the consumer field was too small. On the other
hand, select small industries were beneficiaries of the access improvement and have
endured—in part because of the unique need they fulfill. Simple sugar making operations
and rattan weaving are illustrations of the positive economic impact that resulted.
Too revisit the idea that one aspect of road impact is the improvement of information
and technology we may again note again that just as commodities flow over roads so too
do ideas and information related to family planning and other innovations as noted above.
A simple hand operated threshing machine was one example of an innovation that
diffused into the region under improved access (Leinbach, 1983b). Widespread use
occurred as a result of the new roads. But a question of this and other innovations,
particularly in densely populated areas, is: What are the real benefits when machines
displace labor rather than create employment? It was also clear in numerous situations
that out-migration from the project area occurred as a result of the improved access and
resultant decrease in demand for labor (Leinbach, 1981;Leinbach, 1983a). Both of these
situations suggest that the interrelationship between access improvement and information
change is complex and can bring deleterious effects. Further despite the positive aspects
of the impact of roads built under labor intensive, poverty alleviation programs, both
mounting social and economic evidence shows that this approach is not an effective way
to deliver transport infrastructure efficiently nor is it a cost effective way of alleviating
poverty (Daly and Fane, 2002). Other recent reports which attempt top capture the nature
of impact are Cook and Cook, 1990, Khisty, 1993, and Mazlumolhosseini, 1990.
14
A variety of non-traditional methods have been utilized to measure social and
economic benefits in rural infrastructure provision. Building on the Indonesian examples
above, one effort has attempted to capture both social and economic impacts while
isolating a “best” set of rural road projects for implementation (Leinbach and Cromley,
1983; Leinbach, 1988; Leinbach and Cromley, 1989). Here a goal programming
methodology is utilized where a set of criterion variables measuring key outcomes is
selected. Examples of criterion variables are the total population (or subsets of this)
affected in each project as well as internal access, integrated development potential,
bridge costs, and seasonal unemployment levels. Subsequently, some attainment or
expectation levels are derived. These show the minimum population that needs to be
served, the maximum road length per project, the maximum off-season unemployment,
etc. The criteria are then grouped in priority levels. For example a set of projects might
be selected where the most critical variables emphasize the total population served, lack
of competing roads, number of facilities served, employment opportunities for women,
and the contribution of the access to integrated development. The solution method allows
utilization of a weighting factor to determine how much increase in one variable is
necessary to offset a decrease in another variable at the same priority level. Sensitivity
analyses can be carried out by switching variables, creating weights and altering priorities
associated with each to simulate potential outcomes given specific and alternative
objectives. These objectives may emphasize and weight social aspects of development.
For example to what degree does a particular road project capture women’s potential
participation in the labor force, access to educational opportunities, etc. While the paper
cited uses a mathematical programming technique the derivation of a simpler model for
15
use and implementation at a local level would be fairly easy to construct. Further the
same methodology can be utilized to integrate transport projects into local development
combined with social objectives (Leinbach and Cromley, 1989).
Another approach to the selection of road projects not dramatically dissimilar
from that above, when the specific objective is poverty reduction is carried out by van de
Walle (2002). Here an attempt is made to develop an operational approach that is
grounded to a public economics framework in which efficiency and equity concerns are
inseparable, information is incomplete in important ways, and resources are limited. A
key problem addressed is that an important share of the benefits to the poor from rural
roads cannot be measured in monetary terms. Using Vietnam as an illustration, the
proposed methodology aims to identify places where poverty is high, economic potential
is high and access is low.
In addition, another approach develops and implements a method for
nonparametrically estimating the benefits from road projects at the household level using
the relationship between the value of farmland and its distance to agricultural markets
(Jacoby, 1998). The empirical analysis, using data from Nepal, suggests that providing
extensive road access to markets would confer substantial benefits on average, much of
these going to poor households. The value of this piece is the use of a non-parametric
model where social variables could be exchanged to begin to measure benefits of this
nature at the household level.,
Finally still another example of a recent attempt to measure accessibility benefits
is that by Odoki, Kerali and Santorini (2001). This methodology provides an integrated
approach to analyzing accessibility by considering all constraints faced by individuals,
16
particularly their income. As in the methodology above the derivation of a much simpler
application adjusted for social benefit inclusion would seem appropriate to accommodate
the increasing need to foster decision-making and planning at the local level under
decentralization.
One argument which supports this view is that a major underlying cause for the
failure of governments to sustain investments in facilities lies with the incentives facing
participants in the design, finance, construction and use of facilities. Basically when road
infrastructure deteriorates after construction, it may be assumed that the actors involved
in the initial development process were submitting to incentives that essentially rewarded
them for actions that resulted in unsustainable investment (Ostrom, et al.,1993). It must
be stressed that incentives are not simply financial rewards or penalties. They basically
are the positive and negative changes in personal outcomes that individuals perceive and
which result from particular actions taken within a set of rules in particular spatial, social,
political and economic contexts. This position assumes that there are reasons why
individuals involved in the delivery of transport do what they do. The choices and
decisions which people make regarding the use of services and facilities purposely or
inadvertently benefit or harm others because of the interdependence which exists in
settlement situations. In other words individuals who were rewarded to create the road
were not rewarded to maintain it.
An additional issue which is already of immense importance as we consider
design-making for accessibility is the notion of decentralization. It is clear that
decentralization is increasingly important because informed decisions must now be made
by local institutions which have had little experience in assessing budgets and complex
17
resource allocation. This is true not only in Indonesia but elsewhere as well. The point
here is that the form of transport ownership and operation and especially the delivery
mechanisms obviously need further inquiry. Such analysis can also illuminate our
understanding of the interrelationship between development (perhaps specifically in this
case the changing role of the state) and transport requirements.
Following this line of argument, one possible new approach to viewing the
interrelationship between transport and development lies in an enlarged understanding of
the institutional bases of transport. This involves an examination of the matter of
provision and production of rural and regional facilities and includes questions of rent
seeking, joint use, and economies of scale (Ostrom, et al., 1993). But more important are
deeper inquiries into the individuals surrounding the facilities, the associated incentives
and transaction costs. An additional obvious thrust for analysis along these lines is an
inspection of institutional arrangements relevant to the structure in its spatial and socioeconomic context.
In summary one prescription for a new thrust in research on transport and
development is two-pronged: a “political economy” and a “rational institutional”
approach (Leinbach, 1995; Leinbach, 2000). Clearly we can greatly increase our ability
to understand the larger incentive system by including a political economy approach.
This involves a new examination of development schemes by expanding our concept of
production to include the important role of women in local economies, the incentives that
drive those who control transport resources and a deeper understanding of rural
household travel demand and factors which influence such demand (Barwell, 1996;
Grieco, Apt and Turner, 1996). But most critical again are changes in priorities for
18
transport policy which must meet broader human needs instead of mainly those of elite
groups as has traditionally been the case (Heggie, 1989). While obviously informal
transport cannot replace motorized forms, it can serve a high portion of local travel needs
where settlements have as yet no higher order access and affordable services are not
existent. But in addition, and not unrelated, it may behoove us to explore the relations
between transport and development through a "rational institutional approach" (Edmonds,
1982). In this light our inquiry indeed assumes a strongly behavioral posture where
"actors" are pointedly rational and seek to maximize material goals in the face of
uncertain information concerning alternative behaviors. The fungibility notion of Lipton
in both economic and social contexts and the conversion of resources fits well here. But
more critically it assumes that the institutional setting plays a critical role in defining
those decision situations. These two approaches do fit together for the first assumes a
deeper understanding of transport needs and constraints. Given this, intervention and
delivery strategies must take into account, even in remote rural areas, the institutional
connections of accessibility.
As a social scientist I remain convinced that empiricism must continue to lead our
knowledge building on rural access. Thus I must make a closing plea. That is we need
deeper analyses of access situations that produce both social and economic benefits.
Especially important is that we must assimilate and integrate our knowledge from the
variety of studies which have addressed household activity patterns (e.g. Barwell, 1996;
Bryceson and Howe, 1993; Edmonds, 1998; Recker, 1995; Vadarevu and Stopher, 1996)
and join this information with a new focus on non-farm employment in family context.
How do successful (not rich but ordinary) families utilize access and how are their needs
19
met as their livelihood patterns change with fungibility over time ? The process model
below provides one example of livelihood dynamics in which access figures greatly
(Leinbach and Watkins, 1998). But we must articulate this more clearly and
systematically. Especially critical in this schematic are the ways in which social (quite
apart from mobility associated with work) needs for transport change with household
strategies and family life cycle behaviors where women especially are central
contributors with productive and reproductive participation (see Figure 1 below;
Leinbach and Watkins, 1998).
But important too obviously are the ways in which transport access has been
successfully provided in these contexts whether by non-governmental, private or public
intervention. Which individuals or groups are gate keepers in situations where transport
provision for the common good is involved? How are decisions made? It seems also that
some key information for future application can be gained in examining more dynamic as
opposed to laggard rural communities in Southeast Asia and elsewhere that are
experiencing a breakdown of isolation and are engaged in and linked, both forward and
backward, with a regional and global economy. Admittedly situations where change has
not come about as quickly are important also. Here the role of access in poverty
alleviation and social safety net programs must be addressed.
20
References
Alm, James, Robert H Aten, and Roy Bahl. “Can Indonesia Decentralize Successfully?
Plans, Problems, and Prospects”. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 37, No 1
(April, 2001): 83-102.
Ashley, Caroline and Simon Maxwell (2001) Rethinking Rural Development.
Development Policy Review 19 (4): 395-425.
Athukorala, Prema-chandra. (2002) “Survey of Recent Developments”. Bulletin of
Indonesian Economic Studies 38 (2): 141-162.
Barwell, Ian (1996). Transport and the Village: Findings from African Village-Level
Travel and Transport Surveys and Related Studies. World Bank Discussion Paper No.
344. Washington, D.C., 1996.
Borsuk, Richard (2003) “Corruption, Decentralized”. Asian Wall Street Journal, January
28, A-7.
Brohman, John (1996) Popular Development: Rethinking the Theory and Practice of
Development. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bryceson, Deborah Fahy and John Howe. (1993). "Rural household transport in Africa:
reducing the burden on women". World Development. 21,11: 1715-29.
Chambers, Robert. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London:
Longman.
Chambers, Robert. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the Last First. London:
Intermediate Technology Publications.
Cook, Peter D and Cynthia C Cook (1990). “Methodological Review of Analyses of
Rural Transportation Impacts in Developing Countries”. Transportation Research Record
1274: 167-178.
Daly, Anne and George Fane. (2002) “Anti-Poverty Programs in Indonesia” Bulletin of :
Indonesian Economic Studies 38, No. 3 (December): 309-329.
Dixon-Fyle, Kanyhama. (1998). Accessibility Planning and Local Development: the
application possibilities of the IRAP methodology. Geneva: ILO.
Edmonds, Geoffrey. (1998) Wasted Time: The Price of Poor Access. Geneva: ILO.
Ellis, Frank (1998) Household Strategies and Rural Livelihood Diversification. The
Journal of Development Studies 35 (1): 1-38.
21
Elson, R. E. (1997) The End of the Peasantry in Southeast Asia: a Social and Economic
History of Peasant Livelihood, 1800-1990s. Canberra: St. Martin's Press.
Friedmann, John. (1992) Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development.
Cambridge: Blackwell.
Grieco, Margaret, N. Apt, and J. Turner.(1996). At Christmas and on Rainy Days:
Transport, Travel and the Female Traders of Accra. Aldershot: Avebury/Ashgate
Publishing Ltd.
Heggie, Ian. (1989). "Reforming transport policy". Finance and Development. 26,1:4244.
Howe, John. (1994). “Infrastructure Investment in Bangladesh: Who Really Benefits and
How? IHE Delft Working Paper IP-6, August.
Howe, John. (1996) Transport for the Poor or Poor Transport? A general review of rural
transport policy in developing countries with emphasis on low income areas. IHE
Working Paper IP-12, October. Delft: IHE Delft.
Jacoby, Hanan G. (1998). Access to Markets and the Benefits of Rural Roads: A NonParametric Approach. Washington, D.C. Development Research Group, The World
Bank.
Khisty, C. Jotin. (1993) “Transportation in Developing Countries: Obvious Problems,
Possible Solutions”. Transportation Research Record 1396: 44-49.
Killick, Tony. (2001) Globalization and the Rural Poor. Development Policy Review 19
(2): 155-180.
Leinbach, Thomas R. (1981) Travel Characteristics and Mobility Behavior: Aspects of
Rural Transport Impact in Indonesia, Geografiska Annaler, Ser.B., 63: 119-29.
__________________ (1982) Towards an Improved Rural Transport Strategy: The
Needs and Problems of Isolated Third World Communities. Asian Profile, 10: 15-23.
__________________ (1983a) Transport Evaluation in Rural Development: An
Indonesian Case Study. Third World Planning Review, 5: 23-35.
___________________ (1983b) Rural Transport and Population Mobility in Indonesia,
Journal of Developing Areas, 17: 349-364.
__________________. (1988) The Utility of Goal Programming Heuristics in
Decentralized Development Planning: The Case of Accessibility, Singapore Journal of
Tropical Geography, 9 (2): 86-95.
22
__________________ (1995) Transportation and Third World Development: Review,
Issues, and Prescription. Transportation Research. 29A (5): 337-344.
__________________ (2000) Mobility in Development Context: Changing Perspectives,
New Interpretations, and the Real Issues. Journal of Transport Geography, 8 (1): 1-9.
(1999 Fleming Lecture in Transportation Geography, Association of American
Geographers, Honolulu, 1999)
__________________ (2001) Transport Infrastructure Challenges in Urban Southeast
Asia: Financial Crises, Liberalization, and Sustainability. in Carla Chifos and Ruth Yabes
(eds.) Southeast Asian Urban Environments: Structured and Spontaneous. Tempe:
Arizona State University Press, 115-132.
___________________ (2003a) Small Enterprises, Fungibility, and Indonesian Rural
Family Livelihood Strategies. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 44 (1):7-34.
___________________ (2003b) Rural Accessibility Decision-Making: Issues of
Integration, Scale, and Sustainability. in Gregoire LeClerc and Charles Hall (eds.).
Making Development Work. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
__________________ and Robert Cromley (1983) A Goal Programming Approach to
Public Investment Decisions: A Case Study of Rural Roads in Indonesia. Socio-Economic
Planning Sciences, 17: 1-10.
__________________ and Robert Cromley (1989) Modeling Integrated Development
Investments in Rural Areas: An Indonesian Illustration, International Regional Science
Review, 12 (2 ): 229-243.
__________________ and John Watkins (1998).Remittances and Circulation Behavior in
the Livelihood Process: Transmigrant Families in South Sumatra, Indonesia. Economic
Geography. 74 (1): 45-63.
Lipton, Michael (1984) Family, Fungibility, and Formality: Rural Advantages of
Informal Non-Farm Enterprise Versus the Urban-Formal State. In ed., S. Amin (ed)
Human Resources, Employment and Development Vol. 5, Developing Areas,. New York:
St. Martin's Press, 189-242.
Mazlumolhosseini, Ali (1990). Relationships Between Social and Economic
Development and Access to Rural Roads in Developing Countries. Transport Research
Record 1274: 179-194.
Ostrom, Elinor, Larry Schroeder and Susan Wynne. (1993). Institutional Incentives and
Sustainable Development. Boulder: Westview Press.
Recker, W.W. (1995). The household activity problem: general formulation and solution.
Transportation Research B 29 (1): 61-77.
23
Repogle, M A. (1991). Sustainable Transportation Strategies for Third World
Development. Transportation Research Record 1294: 1-8.
Saith, Ashwani (1992) The Rural Non-farm Economy: Processes and Policies. Geneva:
ILO.
Sieber, Niklas. (1996). Rural Transport and Regional Development: The case of Makete
District, Tanzania. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Start, Daniel (2001) The Rise and Fall of the Rural Non-Farm Economy: Poverty Impacts
and Policy Options. Development Policy Review 19 (4): 491-505.
Vadarevu, R.V. and P.R. Stopher. (1996). Household activities, life cycle, and role
allocation. Transportation Research Record 1556: 77-85
van de Walle, Dominique. (2002).Choosing Rural Road Investments to Help Reduce
Poverty World Development 30 (4), April: 575-589.
Wiggins, Steve and Sharon Proctor (2001) How Special Are Rural Areas? Development
Policy Review 19 (4): 427-436.
Wilson, George. (1966). Towards a theory of transport and development in G.W Wilson,
B.R. Bergmann, L.V. Hirsch, M.A. Kleig (eds.) The Impact of Highway Investment on
Development. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute.
24
Schematic Model of Household Livelihood
Strategies
Figure 1 Schematic Model of Household Livelihood Strategies (after Leinbach and
Watkins, 1998)
25