Rural Development in K. Speu Cambodia- Abstract- Dr. Kao Kveng Hong
-
Upload
hong-kheng -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Rural Development in K. Speu Cambodia- Abstract- Dr. Kao Kveng Hong
-
7/27/2019 Rural Development in K. Speu Cambodia- Abstract- Dr. Kao Kveng Hong
1/5
The affecting of Integrated Rural development on community beneficiaries
by empowerment program: A case study in Cambodia
Dr. Kao Kveng Hong*
Scholar at Angkor Khemara University
Date: 2014
ABSTRACT
Development is seen as a process that increases the real freedoms enjoyed by the
people. These freedoms are both the primary ends and the principal means of development.
After the end of Pol Pot regime, during 1979 to 1990, the government of Cambodia
implemented Rural Development Programs/Projects (RDP), aiming to improve the quality of
life of rural people and also the rural infrastructure with using the emergency relief approach.
In late 1990s, the rural development program has been changed to Integrated Rural
Development Program (IRDP) and sequentially to Integrated Rural Development throughEmpowerment Program (IRDEP) with demand Responsive Approach (DRA) or Right Based
Approach (RBA). At this stage, the IRDEP was broader than rural development. IRDEP is
the first program, which has been implemented in Cambodia as pilot program by the
Lutheran World Federation (LWF) in three provinces namely, kampong Speu, Battambang
and kampong Chhnang. The present study has been undertaken in kambong Speu province to
find out the impact of Integrated Rural Development through Empowerment Program on
Community Beneficiaries.
The research questions of the study are given below:
i. What is the concept of development and, more particularly, ruraldevelopment?
ii. What are the findings of different empirical studies on rural developmentconducted by others?
iii. What is the socio-economic status of the study area?iv. Is there any improvement of the beneficiaries in the study area in regard to
their occupation, accessibility to drinking water, sanitary latrine, light, road,
market and housing condition due to Integrated Rural Development through
Empowerment Program?
v. What is the effectiveness of different training programs of IRDEP on thebeneficiaries in the study area?
vi. What are the changes taken place in the income, asset position, saving andexpenditure of the beneficiaries between before and after the implementation
of IRDEP in the study area?
vii. What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of differentcomponents of IRDEP on the community beneficiaries in the study area?
The objectives of the study are:
(i) To review the related literatures of the study;(ii) To examine the socio-economic profile of the study area;
(iii)
To analyze the profile of the beneficiary households, and examine the impactof Integrated Rural Development through Empowerment Program on
-
7/27/2019 Rural Development in K. Speu Cambodia- Abstract- Dr. Kao Kveng Hong
2/5
occupation, and accessibilities of drinking water, sanitary latrines, light, road,
markets, and housing conditions of the beneficiaries;
(iv) To assess the impact of different trainings of IRDEP on the beneficiaries;(v) To examine the economic impact of IRDEP on the beneficiaries in the study
area in terms of income, asset positions, saving and expenditure;(vi) To assess the effectiveness of integrated Rural Development throughEmpowerment Program on the community beneficiaries in the identified target
areas; and
(vii) To provide suggestions for the improvement of the living conditions of thecommunity beneficiaries on the basis of the findings of the study in the
identified areas.
The study has tested six hypotheses, which are as below:
Ho1. There is no change in the occupation, accessibilities of drinking water, sanitary
latrine, light, road, market and housing conditions of the beneficiaries after the
implementation of IRDEP.
Ho2. There is no change in the percentage of beneficiaries having knowledge on different
integrated rural development training programs after the implementation of the
program.
Ho3. The incomes of the beneficiaries have not changed significantly between before and
after the program.
Ho4. The asset positions of the beneficiaries have not changed significantly between before
and after the program.
Ho5. The saving of the beneficiaries have not changed significantly between before and
after the program.Ho6. The expenditures of the beneficiaries have not changed significantly between before
and after the program.
To achieve the objectives and test the hypotheses, the study employs several methods
for gathering data. Firstly, secondary data were collected in order to describe the historical
context of development in Cambodia. Secondly, key information interview and focus group
discussion were used in obtaining information on beneficiaries knowledge on different
components of the program such as community development and planning, human rights,
environment, sanitation and hygiene, agriculture (animal raising and vegetable gardening)
and disaster preparedness. Furthermore, 405 community beneficiaries have been interviewed
to find out the extent of change in the quality of life of the beneficiaries between before and
after the program. The whole fieldwork was conducted in a period of seven months i.e.,
which is divided into two stages. Firstly, preliminary data collection lasted three month, from
October, 2006 to end of December, 2006. Secondly, the actual field research was conducted
in four months, i.e., from February, 2007 to May, 2007.
The study illustrates that the rural development program in Cambodia has been
changing from time to time according to the government policy and strategy. The government
of Cambodia has employed the decentralization approach, and the integrated rural
development program has been implemented as the demand responsive approach or rights
based approach for the development of the rural area.
-
7/27/2019 Rural Development in K. Speu Cambodia- Abstract- Dr. Kao Kveng Hong
3/5
The study has analyzed the results of field work and come up with the results as given
in brief below:
First, rice was the first prioritized crop of the beneficiaries and its productivity was
2.15 tons per hectare after the program as compared to 1.45 tons per hectare before the
program.Second, the beneficiaries occupations in the studied districts were cultivation, animal
raising, firewood collection, charcoal making, business, service provider, daily and monthly
worker, vegetable gardening and fish raising. The study reveals that occupations, which could
affect positively on the beneficiaries quality of life, were cultivation, raising, vegetable
gardening, service provider and business.
Third, the beneficiaries drinking water accessibility in the study area is compared
between before and after the program. The study found that the beneficiaries had changed
their behavior from using the unsafe water to safe water, and after the program, the
percentages of beneficiaries who used water from hand dug well, community drilled well and
private drilled well were increased.
Fourth, the study shows that more percentage of beneficiaries had access to sanitary latrine as
compared to that before the program, and especially after the program, the beneficiaries had
access to dry pit and poor flush latrines.
Fifth, the study illustrates that only three per cent of community beneficiaries had
access to electricity after the program as compared to nil before the program. Further, there
was large increase of community beneficiaries in using battery after the program in the study
area.
Sixth, the study identifies that the community beneficiaries could improve their quality of
house after the program. There were several types of houses in the study area, but theimportant changes of housing conditions of the beneficiaries after the program were found to
be as Zinc roofed with room, Zinc roofed without room, Brick roofed with room and Brick
roofed without room.
Seventh, the study reveals that the community beneficiaries had access to road from
village to village, village to commune, village to district, and village to province
headquarters. The large increases in the percentages of beneficiaries having access to
different kinds of roads were found in provincial based road, district based road and
commune based road after program.
Eighth, as the road condition in the studied districts was much better after the program
compared to that before the program, so the community beneficiaries were able to go easily
to the market located either in the village or commune or out of the commune/ district.
Ninth, the study reveals that the community beneficiaries had knowledge on
community development and planning, human rights, sanitation and hygiene, agriculture
(animal raising and vegetable gardening), water supply and disaster preparedness after the
program. Furthermore, they could use the above knowledge, which they gained from the
community development programs to develop their own commune, improve their health
situation and increase their quality of life through income generation under the facilitation
and support of LWF and local authority.
Tenth, the study finds that the income of community beneficiaries had increasedsignificantly after the program as compared to that before the program. The result of the
-
7/27/2019 Rural Development in K. Speu Cambodia- Abstract- Dr. Kao Kveng Hong
4/5
study indicates that larger increases in the income of the beneficiaries in the study area were
found in vegetable gardening, animal raising, firewood collection, business, daily workers
and charcoal making. Before the program, the average annual income of the beneficiaries was
US$416.75, which increased to US$ 599.99 after the program.
Eleventh, the asset value of the community beneficiaries in the study area hadincreased considerably after the program as compared to that before the program. The largest
increases in the percentages of beneficiaries having assets in terms of both in quality were
found in case of motor cycles, bicycles, radios/radio cassettes, rice mills, ox carts, animals,
televisions (TVs) and land for rice and crop farming activities after the program as compared
to before the program.
Twelfth, the study reveals that there was significant increase in the savings of the community
beneficiaries after the program in the study area. The largest increases in the saving of the
beneficiaries were found in saving in house and group saving after the program, and there
were decreases of the saving of the beneficiaries after the program in the study area in buying
gold and asset.
Thirteenth, significant increase in the expenditure of community beneficiaries was
found after the program as compared to that before the program. The average annual
expenditure of the beneficiaries in the study area after the program was found to be as US$
341.14 as compared to US$ 286.36 before the program.
Fourteenth, the SWOT results show that CCs, VDCs and community beneficiaries
had increased their knowledge not only on the community development and planning,
importance of village bank and credit; but also on human rights, environment, selection of
rice seed, water and sanitation facilities. In addition, they could use knowledge to develop
their commune plan and select rice seed to increase rice production. But, the weaknesses ofthe program were insufficiency of following up activities, inadequate financial support at
commune level, less number of training on health and sanitation and lack of resource persons.
But, the community beneficiaries had the opportunities to learn how to select rice seed,
agricultural technique and learn about the importance of village bank. Further, they had the
opportunity to use credit from the village bank for income generation through raising animal,
chicken, duck cowetc. The threats of the program were lack of human resources and poor
understanding on health, rice bank, natural resources and internal cooperation among
community beneficiaries.
The study concludes that for the sustainability of Integrated Rural Development
through Empowerment Program (IRDEP), the Donors, NGOs, programs, projects, and the
state should take into account the participation of the community beneficiaries in the
development programs/projects from the initial stage of project (project design and
implementation) till the end of project (monitoring, evaluation and following up); and the
capacity building of the beneficiaries in various sectors such as development of plan, rights
for use of natural resources, agricultural technique on how to increase the productivities of
crops and live stocks. Finally, sustainable IRDPE should be achieved through a new
development approach that considers the overall well-being of community beneficiaries.
-
7/27/2019 Rural Development in K. Speu Cambodia- Abstract- Dr. Kao Kveng Hong
5/5
*Dr. Kao Kveng Hong is Professor of Business & Economics at Angkor Khemara University,Phnom Penh, Cambodia. He holds a Bachelors Degree in Economic Science, a MBA and a
Ph.D. in Business Administration. Prior to entering academic life Dr. Hong was active inbusiness; he remains the CEO of Asia Marketing Solution Company, a company he foundedin 2006. Dr. Hong is also a qualified teacher. He began his career as an English and Japaneseteacher in private schools in Siem Reap. These days he teaches Marketing, Media,
Management and sales subjects to undergraduates and MBA students. He may be reached [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]