HABITATINTL. Vol. 10. No. 3. pp. 225-234.1986. Printed in Great Britain.

0197-3975/86 $3.00 + 0.00 Pergamon Journals Ltd.

Two Approaches to the Improvement of Low-Income

Urban Areas - Madras and Orangi

ARIF HASAN and CHETAN VAIDYA* OPP, Pakistan; and ORG, India

Slums or squatter settlements have long been recognised as a major urban problem in India and Pakistan. Until recently, public authorities have not been

SUMMARY

able to bring about any substantial change in these settlements. However, there have been two relatively successful projects one in Madras and the other in Orangi, Karachi. Although the basic aim of both the projects has been to seek improvement in the low-income areas of urban poor, approaches adopted by the two projects have been different. This paper has studied these approaches and has identified their differences. Emphasis of the Orangi Pilot Project (OPP) approach is on management of the programme by the people themselves. OPP provides a viable approach to undertaking improvement programmes in low- income urban areas. Madras Slum Improvement Programme (SIP) also provides a possibility of finding long-term solutions to the urban slum problems. It is managed by public agencies and has not been fully successful as the local community has not been effectively involved in the programme. It is felt that SIP will be more successful if the local community is fully involved in the process of planning, implementation and maintenance of the programme.

BACKGROUND

Slums or squatter settlements have long been recognised as a major urban problem in India and Pakistan. Until recently, public authorities have not been able to bring about any substantial change in these settlements and their problems have been considered as insurmountable. However, there have been two relatively successful projects, one in Madras and the other in Orangi, Karachi.’ The Madras Slum Improvement project is being implemented by public agencies and is assisted by the World Bank. The Orangi Pilot Project, on the other hand, has been initiated by a non-governmental organisation and the construction activities of the project are not assisted by any external financial agency. Though the basic aim of both projects has been to seek improvement in the low-income areas of urban poor, approaches adopted by the two projects have been different. This paper has studied these approaches and has identified

*Address for correspondence: Operations Research Group, ‘Nandnvan’, Dr Vikram Sarabhai Marg, Baroda 390 007, India.

‘See “India’s Struggle Against Slums”, in: Urban Edge, (November 1982), p. 5 and Anzorana, J., “Report on Pakistan Projects”, Orangi Pilot Project, Karachi, 1984, p. 20.

225

226 Arif Hasan and Chetan Vaidya

their differences. It is felt that the paper would help in developing alternative approaches to the slum problems in other cities.

The paper has been divided into two sections. The first section provides background information and description of the two projects and the second section has identified differences in the two approaches.

PROJECT ~ES~RI~ION

Orangi Pilot Project2

Orangi is a Kutchi abadi, a squatter settlement inhabiting 800,000 people in an area of 5,000 acres. In the Karachi division alone there are 362 such settlements with a total population of 3.2 million. In Orangi, houses were traditionally built by private initiative, sometimes with credit from local building manufacturers. There was no government assistance. Therefore, construction of shelter was not a major problem. However, construction of sewerage and drainage was neglected as the roads were not considered to be the responsibility of any individual household. As a result the roads of Orangi were full of pools of stagnant water, sewerage waste and garbage.

A Directorate of Katchi Abadi was created by the government to look into the possibility of providing them with some basic services such as water supply and sanitation. These improvements involve large sums of money and the govern- ment agencies responsible for this task have faced difficulties with regard to funding. There were two possible sources of funding - namely, external financing and development charges. As for the first option, the difficulty was means of recovering the loan money for repayment, and in any case external funding can only solve part of the katchi abadi problem. In the case of the second option, the major obstacle was the prohibitive cost of development. If a house was built on 60 to 80 sq.m for 15,000-20,000 rupees (US$l,OOO-1,333) and that too on an incremental basis, spread over many years, then the owner found it impossible to pay 3,~0-4,O~ rupees (US$200-267) for water and sanitation systems. In addition, the residents felt that it was the duty of the public agencies to provide these basic facilities to them. Under these difficult conditions, some people had themselves made limited attempts at improving their lanes. However, due to lack of technical support and organised community partici- pation all such efforts ended in failure.

The problem was. therefore, given the inhability of the government, to find a method of improving the squatter settlements. Dr Akhtar Hameed Khan, Director of the Orangi Pilot Project (OPP), envisaged an alternative strategy for development. Its main thrust has been on “development from below”. In this method, the creation of effective local organisations and dissemination of technical skills among local people has been the key to the improvement of Orangi.

Major steps involved in the OPP experiment have been research, extension and support. As the people of Orangi are poor, they cannot afford a conventionaf sewerage system implemented through contractors and local government agencies. Therefore, the first step of OPP has been to reduce the cost of a standard sewerage system to be within the affordable limits of the people. The other steps involved in the experiment have been to motivate the

‘It is mainly based on Sami Mustafa, “introduction to Orangi Pilot Project: Project Reports: April 198%June 1983”. OPP. Karachi, 1983. p. 1-5. and Arif Hasan, “Urban Services Through Community Participation”, paper to International Seminar on Housing in Urban Development organised by NHA at Bangkok, January, 1985.

TWO Approaches lo the lmprovemenr of Low-Income Urban Areas - Madras and Orangi 221

residents to organise themselves for improving their living conditions and to provide those motivated residents with a low-cost sanitation technology and guidance in constructing the system themselves.

The main objective of OPP has been development of local organisations. Therefore, it has motivated residents to manage this programme through collective efforts. The main problem for collective efforts was one of mistrust by the people of each other. In order to eliminate this problem, OPP started with the road or even lane as the unit of organisation. On an average there are between 20 to 30 households in each lane. Therefore, it is possible for the households to organise themselves within this small group and effectively to manage the programme, eliminating the problem of mistrust. The process of planning and implementation of a sanitation system in a typical lane is as follows.

First, the social motivators of OPP convince the residents of the lane regarding the importance of sanitation in their lane. Then the heads of lane households get together, discuss the problems of sanitation and the need to rectify it. When they all agree and are willing to contribute their share of the cost, they form an organisation and elect, select or nominate a lane manager who then makes a formal application to the OPP office for technical assistance. The OPP sends its technical team which surveys the lane and prepares the design and cost estimates. Then the residents collect funds and give the money to the lane manager. The manager buys the material and organises the work. Full accounts of expenses are maintained and a copy is submitted to the OPP office. Sociological problems arising from this procedure are overcome by the lane organisation itself and technical problems are referred to the OPP.

The cost of the conventional sewerage system has been reduced to one-quarter of the prevalent municipal corporation rates, by eliminating kickbacks to engineers or contractors profiteering and by improving the system design. One of the reasons for drastic reduction in cost was an improvement in the design of manholes and septic tanks. It took many months of experimentation with various designs of interception chambers and manholes before a satisfactory solution was found. Through proper research, extension and support, OPP has managed to make a break-through in a self-managed people’s programme without subsidis- ing actual work. OPP subsidy has been only in research and extension; the construction has been carried out entirely through local resources.

Initially only those lanes could lay their drainage lines which were adjoining a nullah or natural drain. In technical terms, therefore, the decision to make the lane a unit of organisation was not the best solution. However, the technical solution was made subservient to sociological considerations. As the programme developed, lanes away from the nullahs realised that if they had to solve their sanitation problem they would have to come together to build secondary drains. The lane organisation therefore have grouped together to form a mohalluh or neighbourhood organisation. In such cases, the elected Councillor has also been brought in by the people and through him pressure is put on the KMC for more involvement in Orangi. The sanitation programme has built up not only the organisational and technical skill of the people but also their political power.

The demonstrative effect of this self-help programme has been significant. When the programme first started in September 1981, it took 3 months for Dr Khan and his social motivators to convince the residents of only one lane that it would work and work well. Today, the demands from lane residents keep pouring in and the OPP office is unable to keep up with the requests. Motivation is no longer required and technical competence has reached a level whereby OPP’s guidance is, in some cases, not sought at all. Low-cost sanitation has been one of the most effective programmes of the OPP. Other programmes include Women’s Health Education and Women’s Work Centres schemes. A housing programme based on the research and extension method has also been initiated.

228 Arif Hasan and Chetan I/ai&

These programmes have been introduced on the base established by the sanitation programme.

Madras Slum Improvement Programme

Madras Metropolitan Area (MMA) had a population of about 4.4 million in 1981. Housing situation in Madras, as in other large cities of India, is far from satisfactory. In 1978 about one-third of the urban households in MMA were living in slums and were estimated to be increasing at the rate of 4.5% per annum, A number of development programmes have been undertaken for the slum population. The State Government established the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (TNSCB) in 1971 with the objective of clearing and improving all the slums. The initial response of TNSCB to the problem was clearance of slutns and resettling the community in costly subsidised tenements constructed on the cleared sites. While slum population was increasing by some 13,000 households per year only about 3,000 tenements were constructed per year.

Another approach followed by TNSCB was the Environmental Improvement Scheme (EIS). Basic services such as public water supply and toilets, roads and drainage, were provided in some slums as part of this scheme. However, this approach, with emphasis on provision of basic services, was ameliorative in nature. This scheme did not have some of the long-term solutions to the slum problem such as provision of land tenure. Thus reasons for limited success of the previous slum programmes in Madras were an over-emphasis on costly subsidised public housing and a lack of land tenure rights for the slum dwellers.4 This had contributed to the continuing increase in the slum population of the city.

It was realised that if the existing conditions and policies continued, Madras faced the prospect of becoming a city in which the majority lived in barely serviced hutment areas.5 In this context, the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (MMDA) developed a shelter programme consisting of slum improvement and sites-and-services schemes. This shelter programme was prepared as part of the World Bank-assisted Madras Urban Development Project (MUDP). The main objectives of the World Bank-assisted urban development projects are: to demonstrate that low-cost technical solutions on non-subsidised basis are feasible and replicable; to re-orient government for the sector; and to strengthen housing and infrastructure institutions. g

olicies These

are also the broad objectives of the Madras project. Given the broad objectives of the project, the Madras Slum rmprovement

Programme (SIP) was prepared on the principles of cost recovery, affordability and provision of land tenure to the slum dwellers. As part of MUDP I (1977-1981) and II (1980-1985), about 83,000 households distributed over 307 slums are proposed for this programme. Improvements in the slum areas are mainly in the form of public facilities, such as toiiets, water supply, drainage, roads, footpaths, schools, streetlights, erc. These are provided as per certain norms which are more of less common to all dums in the city.7 A minimum of 20 sq.m and a maximum of 220 sq.m of land is allotted to each household.

3Based on discussions with various officials of MMDAirNSCB and slum dwellers of Madras. 4Sarin, M. (Editor). Policies Towards Urban Shuns: Slum and Squatters in ESCA P Region. ESCAP,

Bangkok, 1980. ‘Ameen, A.M., ‘*Sites-and-Services Programme - Madras Experience”, presented at World Congress on

Human Settlements, Calcutta, December, 1984, p. 4. %ohen, M.A., “Learning by Doing - World Bank Lending for Urban Development, 1972-1982. The

World Bank, Washington DC, 1983, pp. 3-9. ‘Standards adopted for the Madras Stum Improvement Programme are one flush toilet per I2 households.

one standpost per 10 households; vehicular access to septic tanks serving centrally located public toilets; vehicular access within 50 m of each hut; paved pedestrian access to each hut and one streetlight per 40 m of roads and footpaths.

TWO Approaches ;o the Improvement of Low-fncome Urban Areas - Madras and orangi 229

Households living since 30 June 1977 in the selected slums are eligible for provision of land tenure. The House Improvement Assistance Component was included as part of MUDP IL

Affordability has been one of the most important criteria for the planning of SIP. The maximum permissible expenditure for providing public facilities was Rs.1,300 (US$lOS) per household, as this was considered to be the affordable limit for the slum dwellers. Cost for providing facilities (excluding community facilities) is recovered from the households. Land is estimated on the basis of area and location of the slum.

Households have to pay an initial deposit at the time of entering into lease- cum-sale agreement for the land. The remaining land cost, cost of public facilities and housing improvement loan are recovered from the slum households in monthly instalments at the annual interest rate of 12% over lo-15 years. In addition, a normal maintenance charge per month is also recovered from the households.

MMDA is the monitoring and evaluating agency for the SIP. The programme is being planned and implemented by TNSCB. Work relating to physical survey, demarcation of plots, fixing of stones and identification of eligible slum dwellers for provision of land tenure is the responsibility of the Revenue Department. A Special Deputy Collector (Madras Urban Development Project) has been appointed by the Revenue Department for this purpose. The process of planning and implementation of SIP involves a number of agencies. The process of planning and implementation of a typical slum improvement scheme situated on government land is as follows.

A slum for improvement is selected by MMDAiTNSCB on the basis of existing physical conditions and location. The planning cell of TNSCB identifies the existing level of public facilities and deficiencies in the selected slum based on norms provided for the programme. A layout plan is prepared showing the location of existing and proposed facilities. No detailed household survey is carried out at this stage. However, the community Wing of TNSCB discusses the proposals with the slum dwellers. Estimates for the construction activities are prepared by the construction division of TNSCB. The proposed plan and cost estimates are sent for necessary approvals from MMDA/TNSCB.

After obtaining the necessary approvals, the Construction Division of TNSCB calls for tenders. The work for construction of roads, public toilets, footpaths, drainage, etc. is undertaken by contractors under the supervision of TNSCB engineers. Streetlights and water supply are provided by Madras Municipal Corporation (MMC) and Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (MMWSSB) respectively.

Revenue inspectors working with the Special Deputy Collector (SDC) enumerate the slum dwellers and identify slum households eligible for provision of land tenure. The survey staff of SDC prepares an “as is where is” layout of the slum in such a manner that all the huts have access. The layout plan is submitted to MMDA for necessary approval. After receiving necessary approval, SDC submits the layout plan, sketches of individual plots and list of eligible households to TNSCB. On the basis of this information TNSCB enters into a lease-cum-sale agreement with the slum dwellers. The initial deposit for the land is collected at this stage. Monthly instalments are collected by bill colfectors through weekly visits to the slum. The scheme is handed over to the Municipal Corporation for maintenance.

By July 1984, 27,~ households had entered into the lease-cum-sale agreements and housing improvement loans had been sanctioned for more than 19,000 households.’ Although a number of operational problems need to be

BSLums to Sforey - A Reaf Life Srory. lT$SCB, Madras, 1984.

230 Arif Hasan and Chetan Vaidya

resolved, SIP has demonstrated that this is one of the viable approaches for improving living conditions of the slum dwellers. Other programmes in the low- income areas of Madras include development of small business and maternal and child health care.

DIFFERENCES

Objective of both the approaches is to improve environmental conditions of the low-income areas. Basic principles of the two approaches are also similar. Both the approaches suggest that: (1) slum households should pay for the improve- ments; (2) improvement in the service levels of these settlements is part of a process and not an end in itself; and (3) institutional building is an important objective of the projects.

However, there are differences in the two approaches. The differences have been identified in this section.

Genesis of the approach

OPP’s approach was specifically developed as a response to existing social conditions in Orangi and the local government’s inability to provide an adequate programme for development. As OPP’s aim is ex~rimental social research, it has been able to create viable models of community participation and modify technology to suit these models.’

In the case of Madras, the approach adopted is based on the general approach suggested by the World Bank for shelter programmes in different cities. The emphasis has been to make suitable adjustments such that the approach could be made applicable to local conditions. In addition, as M~D~SCB are public agencies they have not been able to test many alternative methods of development.

The central element of OPP’s approach has been to organise the residents on a “lane” basis. The rational for selecting the lane as a unit of organisation is the fact that a lane, consisting of 20-30 households, is not too large and therefore manageable for effective organisation. *’ In the case of Madras, the unit of organisation is a slum. The slum size varies between 150 to 1,700 households. As the size of slums is very large, it is very difficult to involve the community in planning or maintenance of the facilities.”

Selection of unit

For successful implementation of low-income area improvement programmes, the pa~icipation of the local community is essential. In Orangi, before selection of a lane for this programme, the heads of households of the lane agree to participate in the programme, form a lane organisation and then to approach OPP for technical assistance. Therefore, when a lane is selected for the programme, the residents have been involved in the decision-making process and have understood the importance of the sanitation system.

‘Khan, A.H., OPP’s Three Frogrammes. OPP, Karachi, 1984, p. 2. “‘Mustafa S., OPP - A Case Study in Local Participation and Community Development. OPP, Karachi,

1984, p. 6. ’ ” Vaidya, C., “Planning Slum Upgradation Programmes in India - Some Issues”, paper to Internationaf

Seminar on Housing in Urban Development, organised by NHA at Bangkok, January 1985, p. 10.

Two Approaches to the Improvement of Low-Income Urban Areas - Madras and Orangi 231

In Madras, slums are selected on basis of physical conditions and location. The readiness of slum dwellers to participate in the programme is not an important criteria for selection. The role of slum leaders is limited to canvassing for inclusion of their slums in the programme. The slum dwellers often do not provide all possible support to the surveyors, contractors and engineers for implementation of the programme. This results in a dilemma. The public officials view the slum dwellers as “beneficiaries” of the programme rather than partners in the development process; the slum dwellers often consider that it is the “duty” of the public agencies to provide them with the basic services. In this process, the objectives of the programme suffer.

Management

The sanitation programme in Orangi is managed by the people themselves. This has created certain operational problems. In spite of extension work by the OPP, the residents in the initial stages of the project often were not following the instructions regarding mixing and curing of concrete, connection to the system, and other aspects of construction of the sanitation system. This resulted in certain sub-standard work which threatened the system as a whole. To rectify this, a massive extension programme was undertaken, additional and more appropriate tools were provided to the lane organisations, further modifications were made in technology to make it compatible with community participation, a full-time plumber was engaged to supervise work, and a programme of training masons was initiated. These measures have helped in improving the quality of work.” This indicates that the emphasis of the OPP programme is on finding long-term solutions to the problems of the low-income areas rather than achieving certain targets within a given time period.

In Madras, a number of agencies and departments are involved in planning and implementation of SIP. Generally, proper coordination between different departments/agencies is lacking. Different departments are interested in meeting their own “targets” rather than achieving the overall objectives of the programme. The persons managing various aspects of the programme are not able to see themselves as project managers aiming to implement the programme effectively. This is because MMDA/TNSCB have not developed innovative methods of implementing the programme. An experimental programme like SIP is being implemented through conventional administrative procedures.

Cost and cost recovery

By making technology subservient to the results of social research, the OPP has been able to limit the cost of development to that of labour and materials only. Contractors’ profiteering, kickbacks and government overheads have been eliminated. In Madras, no major attempt has been made to find out alternative methods of construction. The cost of supervision, management and physical contingencies is estimated to be about 17% of the base cost.

Both the approaches believe that the households should pay for the improvements. In the case of Orangi, the cost of construction is shared among the residents. It is collected by the manager of the lane organisation and OPP does not take responsibility of handling people’s money. In the case of SIP, the cost is recovered from households on monthly instalments. The cost recovery is not satisfactory. Recovery of rent in case of slum tenement scheme is only

“Hassan, A., “OPP - Community Participation and Modification in Sanitation Technology”, paper to National Seminar on Management of Urban Development and Services to the Poor, organised by PAS College and UNDP Centre at Lahore, September 1984, p. 12.

232 Arif Hasan and Chetan Vaidya

20-25% .I3 Affordability problems have not necessarily contributed to poor cost recovery. It is generally believed by the slum dwellers that the government may waive the amount in future.

Maintenance

Construction activity in the Orangi sanitation programme is managed by the people. As they are involved in the construction process, they also understand the importance of proper maintenance of the system. Recent studies have shown that the people are replacing defective manhole covers and many lanes where unsatisfactory work was done have been rectified by the people. In Madras, the programme is managed by the public agencies. The attitude of the residents is that, as the agencies have built the facilities, they should maintain it. As such, the maintenance of the public facilities - particularly of toilets and draining -is far from satisfactory. A recent survey of 25 improved slums indicates that as many as 58% of the households defecate in open fields.i4 In addition, the most common outlet for sullage disposal for the majority of the slum households (79%) is the streets. Sanitary conditions are poor, even in the improved slums. MMDA/TNSCB have not been able to involve local organisations in main- tenance of the services. It is pertinent to note here an example of priority of slum households regarding maintenance of the services. In Sivagami Ammaiyar Colony Slum, if a handpump is not working, then the surrounding lo-15 households contribute and get it repaired. However, they are not willing to contribute any amount for maintenance of the public toilet. This is because the handpump is considered as a basic need whereas a public toilet is not.

Type of institutional building

The development of institutions is an important objective of both the approaches. OPP’s aim has been to develop small local organisations based on the lane which can take up development programmes in the project area. The technology of sanitation has been broken down and modified to suit the concept of the lane as a sanitation unit. Where technology requires larger neighbourhood units, as for secondary drains, the lane organisations get together voluntarily.

In Madras, the objective of the programme has been on the development of planning and implementation capacities of public agencies such as TNSCB to take up such programmes in the near future. The Madras programme, however, has not helped in developing local organisations. Discussions with leaders of local associations (Sangams) in S.A. Colony and Ashoknagar slums reveal that, before the improvement programme was implemented, the Sangams have played an active role in construction of kutcha roads and maintenance of whatever basic services were available in the slums. The cost of maintenance was shared by the residents. In Azadnagar slum, the residents of the area jointly presented their case in courts of law for 10 long years regarding the ownership of the land. They also maintained street lamps and three wooden bridges to cross a nearby nala. The cost of the court cases and maintenance of bridges was jointly shared by the residents. However, since the implementation of the improvement programme and signing of the individual lease-cum-sale agreements between the slum dwellers and TNSCB, the Sangams have stopped playing an active role in the improvement of local conditions. Their role is now limited to lobbying with

‘““Tarnil Nadu Slum Clearance Board - Its Performance and Prospects”, paper to workshop of Slum Improvements and Community Development organised by Directorate of Municipal Administration, UNICEF and TNSCB, at Madras, 1983.

“Economist Group, A Base-Line Survey of Improved Slums in Madras City, Department of Evaluation and Applied Research, Madras, 1984, pp, 4-5.

Two Approaches to the lmprovement of Low-Income Urban Areas - Madras and Orangi 233

various public agencies regarding their problems. It is felt that the public agencies have not utilised the capacities of the local organisations in planning. implementation and maintenance of the schemes.

Preliminary evaluation

Evaluation of the development programmes should be carried out in terms of their original objectives. OPP’s main concerns were to promote self-supporting people’s organisations and to discover various models which are based on public participation, management and funding. OPP has been able to achieve both these objectives. It has developed many lane organisations in Orangi which have successfully managed construction of sanitation system in their areas. The success of the sanitation programme can be judged from the following. Out of 3,052 lanes in Orangi over 1,400 have built their drainage system.” This includes over 60 secondary, drains built by mohallahs. People have invested about Rs.18,000,000 (US$12,00,000) in developmental work. For every Rs.100 spent by the people the OPP has spent about Rs.10 for research and extension. This figure is rapidly diminishing.

The two main objectives of Madras SIP were to improve the people’s access to certain basic services and to encourage them to invest in improving their houses by providing security of tenure. In terms of the first objective, the programme has been only partially successful. Maintenance of the services, is very poor and the slum households have not been able to fully utilise these public services. In terms of the second objective, the construction of physical improvements in the slums has encouraged households to invest in their houses. Implementation of the pro slums.’ f

ramme has increased property values and housing rents in the improved It is felt that many households are investing in their houses to get higher

rental incomes rather than to improve their living conditions. Discussions with various slum households indicate that most of them consider SIP to be a good approach to solving urban problems. They also consider it to be a better approach than the slum tenement scheme. However, as the community has not been involved in deciding the selection of services, management of construction activity, maintenance and other related aspects, the programme has been only partially successful in achieving its original objectives.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper provides background information on two approaches to the improvement of low-income urban areas being implemented in Madras and in Orangi, Karachi. Although the basic aim of the two approaches is similar, there are many differences between them. This paper has sought to identify these differences. The Orangi Pilot Project has been successful in achieving its original objectives and provides a viable approach to undertaking improvement programmes in low-income urban areas. The emphasis of the OPP’s approach is on management of the programme by the people themselves. The Madras Slum Improvement Programme (SIP) also provides a possibility of finding long-term solutions to the problems of squatter settlements. It is managed by public

‘sHasan, A., “ Urban Services Through Community Participation”, paper submitted to Seminar on Housing in Urban Development, organised by NHA, Bangkok, January 1985, p. 13.

l6 Analysis of the Ashoknagar Environmental Improvement Scheme reveals that real estate values increased by about 40% after 1 year of implementation of the programme. The amount of rent paid for new stock was approximately 2.5 times the price of rental accommodation built prior to the project. See Robeen, P., Improvement and the Better Off - Displacement a.~ a Consequence of Squatter Settlement Upgrading. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 1984, pp. 44-46.

234 Arif Hasan and Chetan Vaidya

agencies and has not been fully successful in achieving its objectives as the local community has not been effectively involved in the programme. It is felt that SIP will be more successful if the local community is fully involved in the process of planning, implementation and maintenance of the programme. For this social research is a prerequisite, so that the development programme can be related to its findings.