vestments, incentive programs and information dissemination.
These have much appeal in theory based on what we know about the
contribution of diversity to adaptivity in ecological systems. But do
such mechanisms work? Will they work in rural America?
In fact, we have little hard evidence of what works and what does
not work in rural development policy. One reason is we do not have
clear goals. Another is that the resources actually invested in rural
development have been so meager that there is hardly enough expe-
rience to support a conclusive evaluation. Another reason is that for
all of the documentation on rural conditions and trends, research—
particularly research in the social sciences—has a long way to go to
understand exactly why rural areas lag behind urban areas on most
indicators of economic and social well-being. Long-term patterns and
recent trends are assumed to have important effects, but these effects
have not been modeled with any precision. We all have our pet theo-
ries, and some theories are supported more than others by data, but
the field has much to learn before it can turn with confidence to the
task of specifying a research-based model of rural development.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I want to give my pet theory. I want to explain what I
think is wrong with rural America and what might be useful in try-
ing to fix it. The problem is a community problem and the answer
can be found in the process of community development.
Michael Cernea has outlined a perspective on Third World develop-
ment that he calls “Putting People First” (Cernea). The basic idea is
to use human needs and human capacities as the basic building
blocks of a planned rural development program. Putting people first
is consistent with the “human capital” approach in development eco-
nomics, but it has a broader meaning. It also is consistent with the
use of a needs assessment as a planning tool in research and exten-
sion, but it is broader than that. Putting people first actually means
putting people up front, in the driver’s seat. It is a philosophy of
empowerment or, more precisely, a philosophy of capacity building.
Putting people in the driver’s seat does not mean much unless they
have driving skills and unless there is fuel in the engine. Better
Country is an example. With appropriate support, however, the
people—the people in rural American communities—can be most ef-
fective advocates for their own well-being.
Without denying the usefulness of policies and programs that help
people develop their skills and take advantage of opportunities as
individuals, one can see easily that the greater usefulness of this
concept of putting people first is in community development. Com-
munity development is the process of building self-help capacity
among people. In community development, an aggregation of people
who happen to share a territory become an integral unit for self-help.
13