World Bank Reprint Series: Number 473 R E P473 Michael M. Cernea Culture and Organization The Social Sustainability of Induced Development Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Development, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1993, pp. 18-29. @ MCB University Press, 0968-0802.  Sustainable Culture and Organization: The Development 1,2 Social Sustainability of Induced Development Michael M. Cernea Environment Department, The World Bank, Washington DC, USA The intellectual debate about the sustainability of induced development programmes is still largely limited to only two of its basic dimensions: economic sustainability and environmental sustainability. Granted that these two dimensions are important, it is definite that they are not the only main determinants of sustainability. The sociocultural factors which account for increased sustainability, or the absence of which causes reduced endurance and impact of induced development programmes, are crucial. This is so because even development programmes which are environmentally or economically sound are likely to stumble and eventually crumble, if they are not also socially and culturally robust and enduring. A group of my colleagues in the World Bank, working on the issues of sustainability, have made a somehow funny, yet correct observation: they noted that sustainable development looks very different, depending on whether you contemplate it from the economic or from the environmental perspective (Daly and associates, 1992; El-Ashry, 1991). Indeed, the economic view sets much more store on accelerating economic growth, tending to explain away the possible adverse environmental consequences of economic expansion. Economists are known to argue that the negative ecological effects of growth - such as pollution, social degradation, water waste, overuse of non-renewable resources, etc. - can be compensated owing to the intrinsic ability of the growth-generated surplus to pay for cleaning up the environment, or through the power of technology to produce substitutes for exhaustible materials. This argument is soothing, but rather misleading, because it creates high expectations, while real life economic markets and political forces often do not work this way. The environmentalists, on the other hand, emphasize the limitations inherent in non-renewable resources, the cumulative consequences of incremental environmental damage, and urge the maintenance of the environmental "services" which we have inherited with our natural environment. The The author is the Senior Adviser for Sociology and Social Eolicy of the World Bank, Washington, DC An earlier, shorter paper on this theme was presented by the author at a conference on sustainable development organized by CEMARP in Alexandria, Egypt, in 1992. The views and SN 2. 1993. pp 1829 ] MC1 interpretations expressed in this article are those of the author and should not be attributed to the University Press, 0968-0802 institutions with which he is associated environmental advocacy, however, often results in one-sided calls for top-down Culture and regulatory remedies, enforceable through laws and state intervention. Too little Organization recognition is given in such calls to the necessity, and long-term effectiveness, of building enduring organizational patterns of sustainable resource use and management. I believe that in this discussion the sociologist must insert his own voice and argue that sustainability looks different from his perspective: namely, 19 sustainable development cannot be achieved through mere accumulation of technological prowess or economic expansion; nor can it be achieved through "prudent" environmental management alone. More than that, sustainability requires the continuous creation and re-creation of adequate patterns of social organization, within which technological progress can unfold properly, the use of natural resources can be managed soundly, and the social actors of development can participate, both individually and collectively, and can share in the goals and benefits of development. The request that decision makers and planners recognize the cultural and social prerequisites for sustainability is not a simple "add-on" advocated by the social scientist eager himself to join the debate. It is intrinsic to the very essence of the development process. Culture is humanity's basic mechanism for adaptation to nature, as well as for transforming our natural environment. By culture we understand, in the sociological sense, a broader set of elements than those which common sense equates with culture: it is not just art and literature, or values and beliefs. Culture, as a category, is the polar opposite of nature. Culture is all that human kind has added to nature. The patterns of social organization are culture as well; in fact social organization is the core of human culture. It is therefore very difficult, I feel, to separate the "culture" and the "social" aspects of sustainability. Often under the rubric "social sustainability" the issues most frequently discussed are participation and equity, while under "cultural sustainability" reference is made to values and the need to recognize cultural diversity. But these are very tightly interconnected - one may say that in real life they are nestled concentrically. Separating the cultural from the social components (or dimensions) of sustainability, and still further separating the two from the "institutional" dimensions of sustainability, risks being an exercise in intellectually refining concepts which become too disembodied for practical use. The overarching concept of "pattern of social organization" encompasses them satisfactorily and is easier to use as a guide in the design of action- programmes for sustainable development. In line with my emphasis on patterns of social organization, I would like to bring up in this article some dimensions which are less often discussed - namely the concept of organizational intensity of development strategies and the concept of organizational density of the social environment. These are key attributes of any pattern of social organization. They are variables which can be influenced through programmes of systematic intervention. Their value, low or high, can be measured sociologically, and can be changed from low to high Sustainable through purposive action. My argument is that, to achieve self-sustainability, Development development strategies must be not only technology-intensive, but also 1,2 organization-intensive. Organization-intensive strategies lead to constructed social environments with higher degrees of organizational density, thus creating and accumulating social capital. The higher the organizational density and the better the fit between social organization, technology and the 20 requirement for managing natural resources, the higher the likelihood of sustainable development. Induced and Spontaneous Development When we discuss the sustainability of development, we generally refer to programmes for inducing development, rather than to what can be called spontaneous development (even though, now and then, the discussion refers to the latter as well). By induced development I define development programmes which are purposively initiated by governments and development agencies, which use financial resources as the foremost trigger of development (Cernea, 1991). For example, the many projects financially assisted by the World Bank, or other multilateral and bilateral donors, are a good case in point: these are Government-initiated programmes in which the injection of exogenous financial resources is intended to accelerate the pace of development. It has been observed, however, that many such Government-supported programmes hardly survive the day, when the inflow of exogenous financial resources ends. While aiming to launch development which is expected to continue after the closure of the original programme, some programmes prove unable to bring about continuous development, beyond a limited time. This is how the question of long-term sustainability came into the limelight. Subsequently, this concern was reinforced by environmentalists, who legitimately pointed out that, if natural resources are used up in development programmes at a rate faster than these resources can be renewed (not to speak of the abuse of non-renewable resources), their finite character will undercut and preclude the very development which they are making possible. As a result of these and other arguments, it is being increasingly recognized that environmental and economic safeguards have to be built into the programmes for inducing development to extend the long-term sustainability of this development. Indeed, since these programmes are man-made, they must contain the possibility of incorporating not only incentives to growth, but also safeguards against the possible adverse effects of growth. They ought to be designed in such a manner as to address all the key dimensions of lasting development. When development is induced and accelerated through planned Government interventions, it is therefore essential to ensure that such interventions lead towards durable, self-sustaining, long-term development rather than simply cause what we can call brief growth blips and ephemeral development spurts. The programmes for agricultural development are probably one of the clearest instances when sustainability can and must be achieved through balancing the design of purposive Government interventions, so that they Culture and address simultaneously the economic, sociocultural, environmental, and Organization technical dimensions of induced development. I will choose examples for my argument from a domain which is critical for agricultural development - namely the Grovernment-sponsored expansion of irrigated farming. What does it mean to ensure the cultural and social sustainability of the programmes for irrigation development? In reply, I will briefly refer to the 21 experience which we have accumulated in the World Bank in providing support to Government programmes for expanding agricultural irrigation. The governments of many developing countries have supported, and continue to support, the expansion of agricultural irrigation by financing, and actually constructing, the physical infrastructure of new, large-scale irrigation systems. Of course, without such infrastructure irrigation is impossible. However, with only physical infrastructure but without the institutional arrangements to manage such systems, sustainable irrigation development cannot take place. This of course is not a new discovery. But how are institutional arrangements defined? Most often, irrigation programmes have dealt with such institutional issues by including in their design the establishment of governmental administrative bureaucracies to manage the irrigation systems. Much less attention has been paid to the creation of organizations and institutions at the grass-roots level. And this oversight, which has been chronic in the design of many irrigation expansion programmes over many years, has been simply social and cultural, reflecting an underestimation of certain key social/cultural elements, which are crucial for ensuring the long-term sustainability of irrigation systems. Indeed, while top-heavy irrigation bureaucracies have expanded, multiplied and flourished, the organization of a network of water users' associations or irrigators' societies has been lagging far behind in Government- and donor- sponsored irrigation programmes. In other words, this meant that such purposive development programmes did not incorporate in their "packages" the provisions necessary for creating stable, culturally appropriate and institutionally enduring patterns of social organization at the grass-roots level, the level of the water users themselves. The newly created systems are not "full systems", as they remain incomplete in their social component arrangements. Thus the farmers, who are using the water and are the most important social actors in any agricultural irrigation development, were not organized adequately to carry out, collectively and individually, the tasks inherent in the use, maintenance and management of medium- or large-scale irrigation systems. The absence of such organizations has undermined many a programme for irrigation development, by not promoting and harnessing sufficiently the initiative, contribution, entrepreneurship and the collective responsibility and engagement of the very users of irrigation systems. As a result, the absence of such local organizations has led to lower irrigation efficiencies, a fact documented by many evaluation studies. It has also contributed to the Sustainable deterioration (or even collapse) of the physical structures of such irrigation Development systems much earlier than such deterioration would have occurred, had the 1,2 social organization been built concurrently with the physical structures. Obviously, it is very hard to speak about participatory development in such irrigation programmes, if the users of the irrigation systems themselves are not organized collectively to co-exercise the management and maintenance of such 22 systems, jointly with the administrative authorities in charge of them. Absence of water users' organizations results not only in the absence of certain technical maintenance activities which could prolong the lifetime of the physical infrastructure, but also in the absence of a "culture of maintenance". That means, inter alia, that the farmers feel less expected and motivated to participate, and they are less accountable to one another for their attitudes and behaviour. In other words, the culture of maintenance is the totality of attitudes, stimuli, rules, enforcement mechanisms, rewards and sanctions which can influence users' behaviours towards protecting the system, making better use of water resources, penalizing abusers, and rejecting destructive practices. Irrigation development programmes are not the only set of development projects which often neglect to develop the social structures of sustainability in a purposive manner. One can find such similar occurrences in many other development programmes and strategies. Therefore it is important to formulate our conclusions in a broader manner, by emphasizing the importance of organization building as a strategic resource for development. It is in this context that the two concepts which I mentioned at the beginning - organizational intensity and organizational density - have direct relevance to the issues of cultural and social sustainability. In an earlier article (Cernea, 1987), I had the opportunity to underscore the relevance of these two concepts for explaining the mechanisms of development and designing effective development strategies. I would like briefly to elaborate on them here and suggest some ideas for a broader examination. Organizational Intensity My first proposition is: in order to accumulate the building-blocks of social and cultural sustainability, we need to formulate organization-intensive rather than only technology-intensive development strategies. Donor agencies as well as governments have long been concerned with technology transfer and, correspondingly, have emphasized technology- intensive aid strategies. Many developing countries, inspired by the same model, have formulated their own national plans as technology-intensive plans. But technology, no matter how advanced, cannot actualize its full potential, unless embedded within adequate patterns of social organization appropriate for sustaining, using, and maintaining it. This is why creating and strengthening such adequate socio-organizational patterns is no less important than the technology itself. Indeed, if organization is a strategic resource for development, if organization enhances the potential of individual social actors by mobilizing them towards collective actions and maximizing synergy, then building up the levels of organization in society is a direct way to enhance the Culture and effectiveness of development strategies. Organization The organizational intensity of a development strategy is the degree of presence (or absence) of provisions for building organizational capacity into that particular programme or strategy. Depending on this specific content, one or another specific programme may have a low or a high organizational intensity. When one or another development alternative is being contemplated 23 in terms of its likely sustainability, it is, therefore, legitimate to ask: what is the degree of organizational intensity of this particular strategy? In other words, to what extent do the development "packages" designed into specific programmes include provisions for organization build-up? Various investment options are always possible and they are likely to have organizational demands of various intensities. These demands need to be met. There are no rigorous yardsticks for measuring this organizational intensity and qualitative analytical judgements must be made to assess the need for organization creation, change, and development. The absence of precise measurements, I admit, is a difficulty. It is likely that social sciences, particularly the theory of organizations, would eventually develop such measurements. But the fact that we do not yet have quantifying tools to measure more accurately the organizational content and intensity of a strategy does not justify the substantive neglect of the need to organize, to promote "organization-ness". The lessons of many evaluation studies underscore the strong association which exists between economic sustainability and organizational/institutional building. We must conclude that it is essential to examine and critique each development strategy in terms of its organizational intensity and organizational content at the very time of its formulation. The intensity of organizational content should be regarded as an effective and acceptable indicator among those used to judge, ex-ante, the suitability and feasibility of a given development strategy. Organizational Density The other concept which I want to highlight, organizational density, is closely related to organizational intensity. Organization-intense development strategies result in "constructed social environments", to employ the concept proposed by Coleman (1990), which are organizationally "dense". Organizational density reflects the frequency of various types and forms of organization in a given social environment and the multiple belongingness of individuals to an organized form of social action. Organizations enhance social capacity for co-ordinated action, enable individuals to interact more regularly among themselves, and empower individuals as the subjects of development activities. Organizations bring together individuals, who otherwise act disparately, and offer them a stable structure for collective/group action towards one or another common objective. By creating sets of specialized roles internal to the organization, by defining mutual obligations and rights of members, by establishing internal authority systems and accountability, by Sustainable promoting norms and behavioural patterns regarded as useful, and by Development inhibiting behavioural patterns regarded as detrimental to the group, 1,2 organizations tend to enhance the social capacity of their members. This is why organizations are regarded as social capital, why creating organizations is equal to creating social capital, and why increasing the organizational density of a given human collectivity or society is part and parcel of development. 24 Building organizations and increasing the organizational density of human collectivities is an essential part of the broader process of developing the civil society. The types and forms of various organizations span a wide spectrum. Obviously, not all organizations are functionally concerned with productive activities or development, in the sense discussed in the present article. But in general sociological terms it may be stated that, whatever the purpose at hand of one or another kind of organization, whatever the specific activity for which it was established (economic, political, religious, recreational, etc.), organizations are apt to amplify social energy and render social action more, rather than less, effective. Internally, the degrees of structuration of various organizations may range broadly on a wide spectrum, from rather informal to very formal and tightly structured. They may integrate their membership along "vertical" (hierarchical) or "horizontal" vectors and forms of human association. The variance in the characteristics of such organizational or associational forms results in significant variance in the directions and effects of development. Sociological studies have demonstrated the high power vested even in informal patterns of organization. Under some circumstances, these may become more powerful than formal organizations. Variations in the degree of informality or formality, however, are not necessarily good predictors of the amount of influence which the organization can exercise. But there is significant evidence, with predictive power, derived from the performance of various agricultural production systems, that high general organizational density can increase returns to producers. Multiple organizational membership of farmers in village- and non-village-based organizations is a characteristic which varies from one cultural setting to another. For instance, the organizational density of the rural society in Thailand and in the Republic of Korea is considerably higher than the organizational density of the rural society in Tanzania, India or Senegal. Density can be measured through some simple measure like multiple membership, number of organizations, patterns of reciprocity, degrees of mutual engagement in joint activities, etc. Studies available thus far confirm the correlation of, and bolster the conviction in, the superiority of organizationally intensive development strategies. Of course, purposively increasing organizational density through development strategies usually requires additional investments. It is important to realize also that there is a distinction between investing in what is called human capital formation and investing in social capital formation, even though the two are closely linked and reinforce each other (some researchers use these two concepts interchangeably). The first refers primarily to investing in Culture and education, training and skill formation, enriching the competence and Organization productive capability of individuals. The second refers primarily to investing in "organization-ness" among individuals, in other words in establishing organizations, associations and various forms and networks of patterned interaction and engagement among individuals. There are many ways of promoting and facilitating increases in 25 organizational density, even though not enough is systematically known and codified about how to invest in social organization. But often even the knowledge already available in this respect is not being used. For many agencies it is far easier (and it appears "normal") to spend vast amounts of money on physical items than to invest effectively and profitably in organization building. Yet the returns from higher degrees of adequate organization (as opposed to non-functional organization) are usually very high. The investments in physical infrastructure alone may be wasted, if the incremental expenditures for developing social organizations and human capital are not made. The underestimation of the value of organizations in development programmes takes at times very detrimental forms, undermining the sustainability of those very programmes. Coward (1985) has analysed how the designers of some development projects in Sri Lanka and the Philippines have ignored already existing local organizations, misrepresented their strength and roles, and deprived the new projects of the social capacity vested in those existing organizations. The practical challenge, on the contrary, lies not in discarding but in harnessing the resources of existing organizations and involving them in sustaining new developments. When existing organizations are weak, the challenge lies often in finding ways to strengthen them into more robust support structures of the new developments. And,when there are no adequate organizations, it is necessary, nay essential, for the success of development programmes to assist in "crafting" them. In providing such assistance official programmes must avoid imposing blueprints and must "enhance the capability of suppliers and users to design their own institutions" (Ostrom, 1992), well matched to the particular cultural, physical and economic environment. Investing in Organization Building The previous argument about organizational intensity and density in development programmes may be illustrated with the case of an innovative programme carried out in Pakistan over the last 15 years, with World Bank financial, sccial and technical assistance. The programme consists of a sequence of three successive Bank-financed projects for irrigation development, called the On-Farm Water Management projects I, II, and III The projects started in the late 1970s and the third stage is still being undertaken. They are a model of what I call, in this article, an organization-intensive programme, or an organization-intensive set of projects. Sustainable The essence of this long-term programme is a significant enhancement of the Development organizational capacity of the local social actors in state-owned and -managed 1,2 irrigation systems. The organizational capacity of the rank-and-file users becomes a strategic resource for development and environmental management. Such enhancement has been and is being achieved through the gradual creation of local associations of water users along each watercourse in Pakistan's 26 irrigated areas. The series of On-Farm Water Management Projects in Pakistan represents one of those innovative programmes which broke with past technology- and economics-centred approaches, and recognized the crucial role of local social actors. This programme has been deliberately formulated to aim at creating users' organizations - in other words, a programme which would increase the organizational density among a certain population. It allocates special investments for this goal, thus purposively creating a social infra- structure to complement the new physical infrastructure of those irrigation systems. Informal associations of users at the watercourse level first appeared in Pakistan some 20 years ago. Often they were loosely rooted in pre-existing, non- water- related, kinship systems or neighbourhood networks. Formal WUAs, as organized structures with defined functions and recognized legal status, were first established in 1981. Since then more than 14,000 WUAs have been formally constituted. Many more are needed to cover all Pakistan's irrigated land, watercourse by watercourse, as there are some 100,000 watercourses in Pakistan's irrigated land. Although there is still a long way to go, the creation of these 14,000 organizations - notwithstanding their teething problems or various failures and set-backs - is already an extraordinary accomplishment. It is a leap forward in asserting users' roles and participation in water management, in purposively creating a new social fabric, intended to endure, and in mobilizing human and material resources for immediate activities of mutual benefit. A field study on the establishment and activities of these water users' organizations in Pakistan (Byrnes, 1992) demonstrated how the three main sets of WUA functions are performed: (1) water management - allocation/distribution; (2) infrastructure maintenance at the system's end-level; (3) management of the members' group itself. The study found significant variation in the degree to which different WUAs, once formed, succeeded in becoming effective participants in one or another of the functions of irrigation management. For instance, many of the WUAs studied were most active in watercourse design and construction; others contributed not only to brick-lining, but also more broadly to resource mobilization. Furthermore, after physically improving the watercourse, some of the new WUAs faded, for various reasons, while others managed to get stronger and stronger and became active in water-allocation decision making and conflict resolution. As this article is being written, the number of Pakistan's WUAs continues to Culture and increase and, as they grow and expand, they also encounter new problems of Organization their own or of irrigation system development. Their potential, however, is demonstrated beyond a doubt: as they gradually mature and federate, these WUAs hold an attractive promise of taking over a share of the responsibilities currently -ested in governmental agencies, and of expanding their participation in system management beyond the watercourse. This will 27 enhance the nvolvement of the irrigators themselves in networks of interaction and mutual engagement, increasing the sustainability and efficiency of irrigation systems in a bottom-up way. During this process, two fundamental assumptions were proved correct: first, that financially induced development programmes not only are appropriate for transfering hardware technology, or civil works, but also can promote the establishment of new patterns of social organization; second, that the enactment of legal frameworks - such as the legal acts issued by each of Pakistan's provinces to legitimize the creation of WUAs and confer on them juridical recognition as corporate bodies - can be used as a powerful lever for social development, in judicious combination with other stimuli. Similar successful approaches of investing in creating local organizations of water users were applied in communal irrigation systems in the Philippines. These efforts resulted in significant economic benefits, both immediate and long- term, ir addition to generally enhancing the local social capacity for many other (non-irrigation) activities (Bagadion and Korten, 1992). Group formation and the creation of organizations are not easy social endeavours, and many experiences need to be studied to learn from both their strengths and their weaknesses. The Philippines' experience in using community organizers (Illo and Chiong-Javier, 1983; Illo et al., 1984; Korten and Siy, 1988), as well as the approaches developed in Thailand, Indonesia and Sri Lanka in using "institutional organizers" and "social organizers" (Manor et al, 1990) demonstrate that induced development programmes contain many opportunities for incorporating both financial resources and tenacious social work for the purpose of building up and promoting local social organizations. Values and Norms Before concluding, I would like to bring into the discussion another cultural dimension of sustainability in agricultural development, and in development in general: this is the role of values and norms and the relationship between organization and norm enforcement. I refer here primarily to a specific set of norms, which are also a part of a culture - namely the entire variety of values and rules, ranging from the informal to the more formal, from customary to legal rules, which pertain to the economic behaviour of people or, in other terms, to their productive activities. The economic behaviour of individuals is shaped not only by the pressures of their surrounding environments, natural or social-economic. It is also guided by their economic rationality, by their economic psychology, by the way in which Sustainable they perceive (correctly or mistakenly) what is advantageous and what is Development detrimental, by the way in which they rank their needs and conceive their 1,2 obligations to their family, to other people, or even to divine spirits. The economic rationality of people is not universally similar across cultures. Subsistence economies engender and imply certain types of economic rationality among their human agents, while market-based economies engender 28 and imply significantly different types of economic rationality from their human actors. Such different rationalities result in different behavioural norms, adopted tacitly or proposed and instituted socially. It is, therefore, important that governments and development agencies support and promote - through education, economic policies and/or legal frameworks - the spread of economic understanding, values and rationalities which contribute to sustainable development and to the careful use of natural resources. Human activities are infused with norms, and at every step people either obey or transgress norms. The question to research is to what extent can certain norms be more conducive to sustainable development activities? Clearly, those norms which are protective of the environment, support thrift, honesty, defend property, assert the value of mutual support, etc., are necessarily conducive to more effective and sustainable production activities. Increasing the cultural and social sustainability of development programmes implies therefore the purposive cultivation of attitudes consistent with such norms, in other words, the socialization of the social actors, more specifically of the productive agents, towards a normatively regulated, sound economic behaviour. I assume that even those economists who may be little concerned with cultural sustainability would nevertheless recognize the importance of legal frameworks for the functioning of free markets. But, again, in any society the legal frameworks are a constitutive part of what sociologists and anthropologists call culture. Indeed, what are legal frameworks other than cultural norms which are institutionalized by the state? I believe therefore that all those interested in the issues of sustainability can agree and argue jointly that the sociocultural sustainability of induced development programmes is no less important, and no less worthy of investments and toil, than the economic or environmental sustainability of such programmes. References Bagadion, B U and Korten, FF (1992), "Developing Irrigators' Organizations A Learning Process Approach", in Cernea, M M (Ed), Putting People First Sociological Variables in Rural Development, Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford Byrnes, KJ. (1992), Water User Associations in Pakistan, World Bank Technical Paper No. 173, Washington, DC. Cernea, M M (1981), Modernization and Development Potential of Traditional Grass-roots Peasant Organizations, World Bank Reprint Series Number 215, (see also Attir, M O., Holzner, B and Suda, Z. (Eds), Directions of Change. Modernization Theory Research and Realities, Westview Press, Boulder, CO). Cernea, M.M (1987), Farmer Organizations and Institution Building for Sustainable Development, World Bank Reprint Series Number 414, (see also Regional Development Dialogue, Vol 8 No 2, Summer, pp 1-24) Cernea, MM (1991), "Social Science Knowledge for Development Policies and Programs", in Culture and Cernea, M M (Ed), Putting People First Sociological Variables in Rural Development (2nd ed), Oxford University Press, New York-London Organization Coleman, J (1990), The Foundations of Social Theory, The Belknap Press of Harvard Press, Cambridge and London Coward, WE J- (1985), Technical and Social Change in Currently Irrigated Regions Rules, Roles and Rehabilitation, in Cernea, M M (Ed), Putting People First Sociological Variables in Rural Development, Oxford University Press, New York-Oxford 29 Daly, H.E and associates (1992), Operationahzing Sustainable Development in the World Bank, Working draft, processed El-Ashry, MT (1991), The World Bank, Global Environment, and Sustainable Development, Tokyo, Japai, 11 March Illo, J FI and Chiong Javier, ME (1983), Organizing barmers for Irrigation Management, Ateneo de Naga, Naga City Illo, J F I., de los Reyes, R and Felix, N S. (1984), Organizing Farmers for Communal Irrigation, Institute of Philippine Culture, Quezon City. Korten, FF and Sly, R.Y. (Eds) (1988), Transforming a Bureaucracy The Experience of the Philippine National Irrigation Administration, Kumarian Press, West Hartford Manor, S, Patamatankul, S. and Olin, M (Eds) (1990), Role of Social Organizers in Assisting Farmer-mariaged Irrigation Systems, IIMI, Colombo Ostrom, E (1992), Crafting Institutions for Self-governing Irrigation Systems, ICS Press, San Francisco Distributors of World Bank Publications ARGENTINA Th MideEtOsre ITALY PORTUGAL C os hSRL 4 Mid Et Commisdonaria Sansoi SPA CvrarlaPortugal Caleria Guemes Cairo Via Duca Di Calabria, 1/1 Rua Do Carmo 70-74 Florida 165,4th Floo-Ofc. 453/465 Casell Pbstal 552 1200 Lisbon 1333 Buenos Aires FINLAND 50125 FSreAze Akatsedrum kau-ppa SAUDI ARASIA,QATAR AUSTRALIA, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, PO B JAPAN Jauir Book Store FIJI, SOLOMON ISLANDS, SF-00101 Helsinki 10 Eastern Book Service P.O. Box 3196 VANUATU, AND WESTERN SAMOA Hongo 34home, Bunkyo-ku 113 Riyadh 11471 D.A. Information Services FRANCE Tokyo 648 Whitehorse Road World Bank Publications KENYA RUN Mitcham 3132 66, avenue d'I#m KENYA MYANMAR,BRUNEI Vktoa 75116 Africa Book Service (RA.) Ld. Gower Asia Pacific Pte Lid. Quaran House, Mfangano Street Golden Wheel Building AUSTRIA GERMANY P.O. Box 45245 41, Kalang Pudding, 004-03 Gerold and Co. UNO f Nairobi Singapore 1334 Graben 31 op sorirrAllearSS A-011Wiet D-3O Bonn 1 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, BOTSWANA Pan Korea Book Corporation For singsl ffim BANGLADESH HONG KONG, MACAO P.O. Box 101, Kwangwhamun Oxford University Press Micro Industries Development Asia 200 Lid. Seoul Southen Africa H t Society (MIDAS) W W Street P.O. Box 1141 AHistancSociet 16 . 4Wn dhCetr Korean Stock Book Centre Cape Town SW00 Dhanmondi R/Area 2nd Floor P.O. Box 34 Dhaka 1209 Central Hong KongYeadFosbcr modr: Dhak 120 CetralHongKon International Subscription Service BAk qgiowr HUNGARY P.O. Box 4109S Pine View, 1st Floor Foundation for Market Economy MALAYSIA Crai2hall 100 Agrabad Commercial Arm Dombovei Ut 17-19 Unvesity ooperative Johannesburg 2024 Cluttagong,4100 H-1117 Budapest PUnamkgS=AI duttagong4llo~~ H0l?DdaeiPO Box 1127, Jalan Pantd Deam SPAIN BELGIUM INDIA 59700 Kuala Lumpur Mundi-Prensa Ubros, S.A. Jean Do Lanroy Allied Publishers Private Ltd. MEaCO Av du Rot 202 751 Mount Road MEaO28001 Madrid 1060 Drussels Madria- 600 002 INIFY11C Apartsdo Postal 22160 Libreria Internadonal AEDOB CANADA Branc ofces: 14060 11alpen, Meico D.. Consell de Cant, 391 Le Diffuseur 15 J.N Heredialarg 08009 Barcelona 151A Boul. de Mortagne Ballard Fstate NETHERLANDS oucervlle, Quec y 038 De Lndeboom/InOr-Publlkaties SRI LANKA AND THE MALDIVES J4B 5E6 P.O. Box 202 Lake House Bookshop 13/14 Aaaf All Road 7480 AE Hasksbergen P.O. Box 244 Renouf Publishing Co. New Delhi- 110 002 100, Sir Chiteampalam A. 1294 Algoma Road NEW ZEALAND Gardiner Mawatha Ottawa, Ontario 17 Chittaranjan Avenue ElSCO NZ Lid. Colombo 2 K1B3W8 Calcutta - 700 072 Private Mall Bag 99914 New Market SWEDEN CHILE Jayadeva Hostel Building Auckland Forssglities Invertec ICT S.A. 5th Main Road, Gandhinagar P Fackforwhiget Av. Santa Maria 6400 Banire-50009 NIGERIA Regeringasatan 12, Box 16356 Edificio INTEC, Of. 201 University Prees Limited S-103 27 Stockholm Santiago 3-5-1129 Kachiguda Thre Crowne Budiling jericho Crow R..od Private Mail Bag So0s Forss.cr**tsiorders: CHINA Hyderabad - 500 027 Ibadan Wennergren-Williams AR China Financial & Economic P. O. Box 1305 Publishing House Frarthana Flate, 2nd Floor NORWAY S-17125 Soia 8, Da Fo Si Dong fie Near Thakore Bang,Navrangpura Narvesen Informatim Center Beijing Ahmedabad - 380 009 Book Department SWITZERLAND P.O. Box 6125 Ettersted Faraft1firtides: COLOMBIA Patiala House N4)= Oslo 6 LibreIuie payot Infoenlace Ltda. 16-A Ashok Marg CAs potle 3212 Apartado Aereo 34270 Lucknow - 226001 PAKISTAN CH 1002 Lausanne Bogota D.E. Mirza Book Agency Central Bazaar Road 65, Sharahe Quald-Azm Forsubscteiono nin: COTE D'IVOIRE 60 BajajNagar P.O. Box No. 729 Libralie Payot Centre d'Edition at de Diffusion Nagpur 440010 Lahore 54000 Service des Abonnements Africaines (CEDA) Case postale 3312 04 B.P. 541 INDONESIA PERU CH 1002 Lausanne Abidjan 04 Plateau Pt. Indira Limited ial D rrollo SA Islam Borcobudur 20 Aparlado 3824 THAILAND CYPRUS P.O. Box at Lima I Central Department Store Center of Applied Research Jakarta 10320 306 Siken Road Cyprus College PHILIPPINES Bangkok 6, Diogenes Street, Engomi IRAN International Book Center P.O. Box 2006 Kowkab Publishers Suite 1703, Cityland 10 TRINIDAD & TOBAGO, ANTIGUA Nicosia P.O. Box 19575-11 Condominium Tower I BARBUDA, BARBADOS, Tehran Ayala Avenue, H.V. data DOMINICA, GRENADA, GUYANA, DENMARK Costo Extension JAMAICA, MONTSERRAT, S1. Samfundshtteratur IRELAND Makati, Metro Manila KITIs & NEVIS, ST. LUCIA, Rosenoems Al 11 Government Supplies Agency ST. VINCENT & GRENADINES DK-1970 Frederiksberg C 4-5 Harcourt Road POLAND Sysemratics Studies Unit Dublin 2 International Publishing Service 9 Wate Str DOMINICAN REPUBLIC UL Plekna 31/37 Curepe Editora Taller, C. por A. ISRAEL 00-677W a Trinidad, West Indies Restauracl6n a Isabel I Cat6ica 309 Yozmot Literature Ltd. Apartado de Correoe 2190 Z-1 P.O. Box 560!5 Forsidcrtison orders UNITED KINGDOM Santo Domingo Tel Aviv 61560 IFS Journals Microlnfo Ltd. UL OkrEa 3 P.O. Box 3 EGYPT, ARAB REPUBLIC OF 02-916 Waresawa Alto, Hampshire GU34 2PG Al Ahram England Al Gales Street Cairo THE WORLD BANK Headquarters 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. Telephone: (202) 477-1234 Facsimile: (202) 477-6391 Tplex: WUI 64145 WORLDBANK RCA 248423 WORLDBK Cable Address: INTBAFRAD WASHINGTONDC European Office ; 6 avenue d'I6na 5116 Paris, France Telephone: (1) 40.69.30.00 Facsimile: (1) 40.69.30.66 Telex: 640651 Tokyo Ofice Kokusai Building 1-1 Marunouchi 3-chome Chiyoda--ku, Tokyo 100, Japan Telephone: (3) 3214-5001 Facsimile: (3) 3214-3657 Telex: 26838 The full range of World Bank publications, both free and for sale, is described in the annual Index ofPublications, and of the continuing tesearch program of the World Bank, in World Bank Research Program: Abstract$ of Current Studies. The most recent edition of each is available without charge from: DISTRIBUTION UNIT, PUBI4CATIONS OFFICE OF THE PUBLISHER THE WORLD BANK DEPARTMENT F 66 AVENUE d'IENA THE WORLD BANK 75116, PARIS 1818 H STREET, N.W. FRANCE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20433 U.S.A. ISSN 0253-2131