Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980713172658.5026G-100000@dante> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 17:42:04 -0600 From: "SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (SSI)" <mailto:juwandem@NMSU.EDU> Subject: PROYECTO SUBIR To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 mailto:vdimitroff@MAIL.PTL.COM.MT wrote: >
> Dr Wandemberg's message points to an interesting article, and I assume
> our debate is largely about the 'Participation Typology' laid out
> therein (pasive>>informative>>..etc..up to >>active self-mobilization).
> The ultimate type (7) does not, however, entirely reject the usefulness
> of external agents. IMHO it is more viable when a balance is found and
> such external efforts are harmoniously blended into the internally
> controlled active brew. Did the SUBIR project result in any real
> policies reflecting the suggested assumption(s)? What was the actual
> outcome of this 8-year project? How does the result look when exhibited
> next to the funds spent?
Dear all:
Sorry for the delay in responding. With regards to the questions above:
The SUBIR project was NOT intended to reflect any of the assumptions suggested, unfortunately, quite to the contrary. As a Ph.D. sponsored student I was "part" of one of the SUBIR components. I successfully finished my Ph.D. BUT, will my knowledge ever be used for the purpose I was sent to get a Ph.D. in the first place? Only GOD knows!
The SUBIR project as a whole seems to have been of use to some (e.g., USAID, CARE International, me!) but did the "recipients" get what they could have gotten with the millons spent? I guess we all know the answer. How do the results look when exhibited next to the funds spent? Terribly BAD! (as part of my dissertation, available at NMSU, I analyzed several development projects part of SUBIR) but like the saying goes, una mancha mas no hace al tigre!
Best regards, JC Wandemberg Ph.D.