COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS AND NATURAL RESOURCE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONAL INTEGRATION AS A PLANNING CONSTRUCT by Eric S. Belsky and Gerald J. Karaska Clark University/Institute for, Development Anthropology Cooperative Agreement (USAID) Clark University Institute for Development Anthropology International Development Prcgram Suite 302, P.O. Box 818 950 Main Street 99 Collier Street Worcester, MA 01610 Binghamton, NY 13902 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONAL INTEGRATION AS A PLANNING CONSTRUCT by Eric S. Belsky and Gerald J. Karaska July 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures and Tables ................. .... .............. ii Pre fa c e *. *... .o.. .... .... ..... .... .. 111 Acknowlegements ........... .. .. .. ............ 0 . iv Chapter One: Introduction ............. 0..................0..........0......I Chapter Two: The Evolution of Functional Integration Approach ............ 6 Christaller's Model: The Form and the Logic .............. 7 Friedmann and the Concept of Spatial Integration .......... 13 Johnson and the Concept of Functional Integration ......... 15 Chapter Three: Application of the Functional Integration Approach: The UFRD Case .............................................. 17 Backgorund .. .. 18 JFunctional Integration and UFRD........ o.................. 21 Settlement Systems or Settlement-Based Activities?: Confusion from the Christaller Legacy ..................... 22 Description for Prescription: The Impact of UFRD Methods ................ ............. 23 Chapter Four: Problems with Adopting the Form .............................. 31 The Export-Driven Logic in the Third World ................ 34 Imperfect Competition and the Uneven Distribution of Purchasing Power.......................... 38 Chapter Five: Thc Bottom-Up Approach: Adopting Christaller's Model .......... 43 The Logic as Guide ................... 0...................... 43 The Demand-Driven Approach: A Bottom-up, Rural-based, Basic-needs Planning Strategy ............................... ................... 48 The Settlement Pattern and Structure of the Demand-Driven Approach.............................. 50 Chapter Six: Conclusions ............................................ *...... 53 References ...................................................... 56 -ii­ LIST OF FIGURES Page 1 Idealized Spatial Form of Christaller's Model ............. 0....... ....... ....... ............. 11 2 Idealized Hierarchical Structure of Christaller's Model ..................... ......... 12 3 Friedmann's Model of Sequenced Spatial Organization ....................... .. .. .. ......... ib. 4 A Manual Scalogram .... ............ ..... ... ............. 29 LIST OF TABLES I The 11FRD Methodology. .. ....... ...a ........... o . ........ 25 PREFACE There are many ways of interpreting any single event. In this paper an attempt is made to interpret and assess an approach to regional spatial planning (the functional integration approach) that has been applied in India, Kenya, Brazil, and Ghana and by the U.S. Agency for International Development in Cameroon, Upper Volta, Guatemala, Bolivia, and the Philippines. The interpretation here is based on a uniquely geographical oerspective. In the process of developing this paper and sharing its basic argument that central place theory is at the heart of t a functional integration approach, many have reacted to this interpretation. Geographers have for the most part agreed qith it, while others, some of whom were key figures in the development and application of the approach, have categorically stated that the approach has little to do with central place theory. Some have even said that 3 conscious effort was made not to base the approach on central place theory. The authors respectfully recognize that there is considerable difference of opinion on what perspective best accounts for and makes sense of the concepts, methods, and applications of the functional integration approach. It is for the reader to ultimately decide whether the arguments made in this paper are or are not the best way of understanding the material presented. -iv- ACKNOWLEDGE MENTS We wish here to express our indebtedness to Dr. Richard Wilkie of the University of Massachusetts a.t Amherst, Dr. Lakshman Yapa of Penn State University, and Drs. Gerard Rushton and Michael McNulty of the University of Iowa. Drs. Rushton, McNulty and Yapa worked with us to assess, for USAID, the project which is used as a case study in this paper. In addition to these individuals, we would like to acknowledge Eric Chetwynd of USAID and Dennis Rondinelli of Syracuse University. Though neither of them agree entirely with the conclusions of this paper, both were gracious enough to discuss their differences at great length. Their knowledge of the functional integration approach is great and though our conclusions differ, we learned a great deal from them. We appreciate the support and enthusiasm that they have brought to this assessment. CHAPTER ONE Introduction The problem of uneven distribution of growth and development among regions of a country has plagued politicians, planners, and development theorists around the world for many years. The issue of regional inequality has become particularly urgent in the Third World, where the disparities in the levels of development and the quality of life between predominantly rural regions and urban areas have been increasing at an alarming rate. Stagnation of the economies of these rural areas has been the source of great poverty and misery. In arn effort to respond to the need to develop rural regions, the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the United Nations began, in the 1970s, to concentrate their activities on investments that directly benefit the poor in rural areas. In order to use these invest­ ments to maximum advantage, they sought innovative approaches to planning. Integrated rural development (IRD) was one of these innovative approaches. Howevey., perceiving flaws in the integrated rural development approach, as evidenced in several completed projects, an alternative approach, the func­ tional integration approach, was promulgated (Bendavid Val 1983 and Rondinelli 1984). While the integrated rural development approach focuses almost exclusively on agricultural development, the functional integration approach reaches beyond concerns for the development of the natural resource base to include the settlement system and activities located in settlements. The IRD approach -2­ tends to discount the role of settlements in the rural development process, whereas the functional integration approach takes it as its point of departure. The functional integration approach considers the problem of regional development from the perspective of the interrelationships between urban and rural places. It adopts the view that settlements are the places where a set of functions critical to agricultural development are located (e.g., marketing, credit, technical inputs), and the settlement system is the most effective vehicle for delivering those functions to a dispersed rural population. In other words, the settlement system is the skeleton around which the space economy is organized. This approach derives from a large body of literature which has a distinc­ tive spatial perspective, and has been developed by geographers and regional scientists who have a longstanding concern about how an economy is organized in space. According to the literature, by acting as the conduits through which trade takes place, urban networks organize and integrate the regional economy by serving as the location of central functions for the regions surrounding them, and providing commercial, retail, and social service functions, as well as acting as points of innovation). To those trained in these disciplines, the integrated rural development approach lacks theoretical depth because it ignores the spatial structure of a region and the critical role which urban centers play in the development pro­ cess. As the name implies, IRD involves the formulation of an "integrated" multi-sectoral investment package designed to increase the productivity and incomes of small, independent landholders. Usually, investment packages are planned around and enhance a largu-scale resource management project, such as irrigation, flood control, or rangeland management (Saha and Barrow 1981; -3- Carroll 1982). The theory underlying this indicates that development of the agricultural base of a rural region, through coordinated investment, is the most effective way to achieve regional development.1 The functional integration approach draws on many of the concepts and methods of central place theory, particularly those set forth by Walter Christaller (1933). Although Christaller deduced his model to explain the number, size, and distribution of central places in Southern Germany, theorists since (Losch 1954) have rationalized this model as describing a spatially optimal arrangement of functions among central places. Christaller's model has two dimensions. The jo4i of the model explains the existence, ordering, and distribution of central places. This logic states that the location of any central place activity is determined by demand, and where sufficient, supports the activity. Market forces ensure that the com­ 6ined locations of central activities efficiently meet the-demands of a dis­ persed rural population. The other dimension of the Christaller model is the form or geometry evolved from the logic.