JS 113 C43 - usaid

bolivialodgeInternet and Web Development

Dec 14, 2013 (3 years and 8 months ago)

250 views

JS
113
C43
i967

CENTO
SYMPOSIUM
ON
DECENTRALIZATION
OF
GOVERNMENT
Tehran/Shiraz
May
13
-
20,
1967
CENTO
TREATY
ORGANIZATION
(CENTO)
..
II
I
T
ABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD.
. .  . . . . .  .  . .  . . . .  . . . . . . .  . .  . .  . . . . . .  .   . 1
KEYNOTE
ADDRESS:
"Decentralization
and
Development"
    3
by
Dr.
James
Heaphey
CENTO
REPORT
OF
THE SYMPOSIUM
ON
DECENTRALIZATION
OF
GOVERNMENT.  

     

     9
I.
DECENTRALIZATION
IN
AGRICULTURE
"Iranian
Agricultural
Program:
Centralization
and
Devolution"
32
by
Dr.
Jaffar Rassi
"Main Forces
Necessitating
Centralization
or
Deconcentration
in
the
Development
of
Turkish
Agriculture"
                
35
by
Dr.
Nevzat
Karacahisarli
"Decentralization of Government in
Pakistan"       .        
47
by
Dr.
Abdul
Latif
II.
DECENTRALIZATION
IN
PUBLIC
HEALTH
"The
Pakistan Public
Health
Program
of Smallpox"
       

54
by
Dr.
Nazir
Ahmad
"The
Public
Health
Organization in
East Pakistan"           
64
by
Dr.
Abdul
Rahman
"Factors
that
Render
Necessary
the
Establishment
of
Centralized
or
Decentralized
System for
the Improvement
of
Environmental
Health
Conditions
in
Turkey"       .       
70
by Ministry
of Health
III.
DECENTRALIZATION
IN
RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
"The
Decentralization
in
Rural
Programs
in Turkey"        .
76
by
Ministry
of
Rural
Affairs
-i -
Page
"Decentralization
in Iran"   .   .  .   .   .                 
78
by
Dr.
Fazlollah
Hashemi
and
Anoushiravan
Sadr
"Rural
Works
Programme in West
Pakistan"              
84
by
Syed
Asad
Parvez Shah
"Rural
Development
Programme
in
East Pakistan"        
91
by
Mir Mohammad
Anwar
Ali
IV.
DECENTRALIZATION
IN GOVERNMENT
"Decentralization
of
Government
in Pakistan" 
101
by
Khalida
Shah
"Organization of t
he
Central Government
in
Turkey"
   .  
115
by
Arslan
BaJ3arir
"Appendix
A"
-
List of
Delegates
.......................
122
"Appendix
B"
-
Agenda and
Program.
                  
125
********
***
*
-
ii
-
pelegates
to
tbe
CENTO Symposium
011
Decelllralizalioll
0/
GO
llernmell1
FOREWORD
A
Symposium
on
Decentralization
of
Government
was
held in
Shiraz,
Iran
from
May
l3
to
20,
1967
under
the
auspices
of CENTO,
hosted by
the
Government
of Iran and
organizationally
and financially
assisted by
the
Office
of the
U. S.
Economic
Coordinator for
CENTO
Affairs.
This
symposium grew out
of an
earlier
CENTO
symposium
on
the
Role
of Local Government in National
Development,
which
took
place
in February
1965
in
Ankara,
Turkey
and
represented
a
further
attempt
by
the
24 delegates
drawn from
the
governments
of
the
five
CENTO
member
countries
to
identify
the
"optimum mix" of govern­
ment centralization
and
decentralization.
To
this
end
,
delegates
broke
down
into
three
sub-committees
to
discuss
the
problems
of decentralization in
the fields
of Agriculture,
Public
Health
and Rural
Development.
The
results
and
conclusions
of
their discussions
are
summarized
in this
book.
In
addition,
selected papers
presented by
various
delegates
are
also
reproduced.
Unfortunately,
space
limitations
prevent
us from printing
all papers
presented,
but we
have
attempted
to
choose
a
representative
selection.
This
symposium
enabled
representatives
of the
five
CENTO
countries
to
speak
frankly
and
to
exchange
ideas
on
this
controversial
and
complex,
yet important
subject.
There
is
evidence
of
renewed
interest in the
role of decentralized
administration
in economic
development
in the
CENTO
region,
and
it
is possible
that
recent
action
in this
direction,
especially in Iran,
has
been,
in part at least,
the
result of
the
influence
of
this
symposium.
DECENTRALIZATION
AND
DEVELOPMENT
BY
DR.
JAMES
HEAPHEY
Professor
Graduate
School
of
Public
Affairs
State
University
of
New
York,
Albany,
N. Y.
Mr.
Chairman,
Distinguished
Members
of
the
Conference,
and
Guests:
It
is
an
honor
and
pleasure for
me
to
be
here.
I
am
particularly
honored
to
be
presenting
the
opening
paper for
what
promises
to
be
a
most fruitful
symposium.
Our
meeti
ng
here
results
from
another
CENTO
conference
held
in
Ankara two
years
ago
on
the
subject
of
local
government
and national
development.
Participants
at that
conference
called for
more
opportunities
to
gather
together
represent­
atives
of
CENTO
countries for
the
purpose
of
discussing
the
areal,
or
spatial,
dimension
of
national
development
.
One
pressing
p-
roblem
of
the
areal,
or
spatial,
dimension
is
the
question of decentralization.
A
CENTO
committee
has
been
at
work for
the
past year
or
so
planning
the
conference
that
we
open
today.
It has
worked
closely with
officials
in
Iran,
Pakistan,
and
Turkey
to
enable
those
of us
here
now
to
focus
on
specific
programs
and
the
difficulties
they
encounter
in
the
spatial
dimension.
My
remarks
will
be
general
in
character,
but I
hope
they
are translatable
into
these
specific
program
difficulties.
The
planning
committee
proposed
certain definitions
for
this
symposium;
I
intend
to
follow
them.
They
are
as
follows:
Deconcentration
-
The
delegation
of
authority
adequate
for
the
dis­
charge
of
specified functions
to
staff of
a
central
department who
are
situat
ed outside
the
headquarters.
-3 -
Devolution
-
The
legal
conferring
of powers
to
discharge
specified
or
residual
functions
upon
formally
consituted
local
authorities.
"
Decentralization
-
Embracing
both processes
of deconcentration
and
devolution.
Local
Government
-
The
system
of local
authorities.
Local
Authority
-A
sub-unit
of
government,
controlled by
a
local
council
which is
authorized by
the
central
government
to
pass
ordi
­
nances
having
local
application,
levy local
taxe
s
or
exact labor,
and
within
limits
specified by
the
central
government,
vary
centrally
decided policy
in
applying
it locally.
Central
Government
-
The
government
of
a
unitary
state,
or
if it is
a
federal
one,
the
government
of
a
state within
the
federation,
or,
in
the
case
of
Pakistan
, a
province.
Certain words
in
administrative
language
are
troublesome
because
our
definitions
of
them
conceal
strongly
felt
social
values
.
In many
political
cultures
all
of
the
words I
have
just mentioned­
from
"deconcentration"
to
"central
government"
-
represent
intense
attitudes
about
what
ought
to
be.
"Decentralization" is
more
than
a
word
by which
we
designate
certain phenomena.
It
is for
many
people
a
highly
-
valued
goal.
Not far
hidden
in our
conscious­
nes
s
is
a
tendency
to
equate
words
like
"local
government,
"
"devolution,
"
and
"deconcentration" with
democracy itself.
This
is
not
the
case with
administrative
words
and
terms like
"budget"
"personnel"
"span of
control" or
"communications."
I
suggest
that we
should
be
aware
of
the
nature
of
these
words
with
which we
shall
be
conjuring
during
the
weeks
ahead.
Sometimes
we
will
use
them
to
designate
processes
that
are neither
good
nor
bad
in
them­
selves;
sometimes
we
will use
them
to
designate
ends
or
goals.
Let
us
try to
be
aware
which
it
is
so
that we
can
communicate
more
effectively
with one
another
.
These
words
have
become
part of
our
vocabulary
because
as
nation
states
evolved
there
was
a
need
to
do
something
about
the
fact
that
the
territory
governed
by
the
rulers
in
a
capital
city
was
of
vastly greater
proportions
than
the
city.
"We
cannot be
everywhere!"
said
the
French
king
Philip
the
Fair in
1302,
"That is
why
we
send
men into
the
provinces
."
Philip
and
his
successors
developed
what
is now
referred
to
as
the
classical
French
system
to
deal with
the
-4 -
spatial dimension.
Eventually
the
country was
subdivided
into
prefec­
tures
over
each
of
which
one
man
ruled,
being
the
representative
of
the
French government
in
that
area.
The
Italians
came
up
with
a
variation
on
the
French model,
giving
the
person
governing
in
the
prefecture
less
authority
over
the
specialized field
agents
representing
central
government
departments
in
that
area.
The
Germans,
having
considerably
more
troubles
uniting
the
territory,
brought forward
a
system
emphasizing
more
use
of
local
councils;
and
the
Anglo
-American
tradition was
quite
different
from
all
of
those.
In
England
and
the
Unite(
States
representatives
of
central
government departments
go
into
the
field
as
determined by
the
departments.
There
is little
spatial
defini­
tion
of
government
that
is
consistent
from
dep
a
rtment
to
department,
and
the
field
agents
tend
to
be
responsive
solely
to
their
superiors
in
the
central
departments.
Experience
has
varied
according
to
historical
circumstance
and
political
philosophy.
Unfortunately,
this
aspect
of
political
develop­
ment
did
not become
a
serious
part
of
written
Western political
philosophy.
We
can find
much
rich literature
on
the
question
of
division
of
powers
in
the
capital
city-
between
judicial,
legislative,
and
executive
functions-
but
precious
little
literature
about
the
areal
division
of powers
.
This
is probably because
Western
political
philo
­
sophy
was
originally
shaped by
Plato and
Aristotle
who
were
dealing
with
a
political unit,
the
polis,
deliberately kept
small
so
that
political
relationships
could be
face
-to
-
face
relationships.
Although
the
polis
became
obsolete
long
ago
in
terms
of
size,
as
Western
man's
political
unit,
the
spatial
dimension
of
political units
hardly finds
its
way
into
later writings.
Just as
Western
experience
varied from
nation-state
to
nation­
state,
the
experience
of
countrie
s
in
other parts
of
the
world
has
been,
and
will
be
different.
Though deliberately
modeling
its
spatial
dimension
on features
of
the
Yugoslavian
system,
the
Egyptian
govern­
ment finds
that
certain
things
cannot
coordinate
as
they
do
in
Yugos­
lavia because
of
the
absence
of
a
cohesive
political
party.
The main­
land
Chinese
experimented with
some
spatial ideas
that worked
rather
well
in
the
Soviet
Union
but
gave
them
up
in
favor
of
a
more
indigenous
system.
Both
the
Indian
and
Pakistani
governments
went
through
processes
of first
trying
to
use
the
established
civil
service
to
link
the
spatial parts
of
the
country
together
and
later
trying
to
use
local
govern
ment
for
the
same
goal.
So
it goes
.
Ea
ch c
ountry
borrows,
adapts,
changes,
and
continues
to
search
for
a
workable
system.
-5 -
Accepting
the
inevitability of
variation,
are
there
similar
problems
and
processes
involved
in
these
attempts?
I
think
there
are.
The
first
of
such
similarities
is
the
problem
of
establishing
governmental
rela­
tionships
over
vast
extensions
of
space,
in which one
party is
considered
responsible
for
what
another
party,
at
a
great distance
from
the
first
party,
does.
It
is
the
natur'e
of
modern
central
governments
to
consider
themselves
responsible,
in
varying
degrees,
for
what
happens
within
the
boundaries
of
the
territory
they
govern.
It
is
also
the
nature
of
modern
central
governments
to
be
undergoing
an
increase
in
the
scope
and
depth
of
that
sense
of
responsibility.
This
sense
of
responsibility
can be
shared-by a
local
government.
local
authority,
or field
agent-
but
it
cannot
be
completely
delegated
to
any
of
these.
Thus,
to
the
extent
that
a
party of
central
government.
whether
it be
an
individual
like
a
Minister
or a
group like
a
legislative
body,
feels
responsibility
for
something,
that party
will
try
to
control
whatever
is
done
throughout
the
country
in
regard
to
the
something
involved.
Feelings
of
responsibility
come
and
go,
but
it
appears
there
is much more
coming
than
going for
central
governments.
Some
examples
might
clarify
this.
Today
the
United States
government
is
developing
a
much
greater
sense
of
responsibility for
public
education
than it ever has
in the
past.
As
it formulates
programs
to
bolster public
education
it
cannot keep
itself from
simultaneously
formulating
certain
standards
and
controls
over
the
operation
of
these
programs.
In
the
Soviet
Union we
see
a
movement
now for
central
government
to
accept
increasing
responsibil­
ity
for
urban planning;
and,
whereas
there
was
considerable
autonomy
enjoyed
by
local
authorities
and
local
governments
in
the
Soviet
Union,
this
is
fading
away because
of
the
tendency
to
control
that is
following
this
new-felt
sense
of
responsibility.
By
no
means
am
I
saying
that
an
attempt
to
control
soemthing
leads
to
success.
I
am
merely
saying
that
the
attempt
to
control
goes
along
with
the
sense
of
responsibility.
For many
years
now
central
government
planning
authorities
have
tried to
establish
and
enforce
controls
over
planning
done
in
the
various
municipalities
in
the
Netherlands,
without
success.
Obviously,
the
political
situation
can
be
such
that
central
governments
are
unable
to
enjoy
the
control
they
desire.
If
you
consider local
authorities,
local governments,
and
decen­
tralization
in
this
light,
it becqmes
clear
that
some
aspects
of
these
-6 -
things
exist because
central
governments
cannot have
it otherwise,
though
they
might not
like
the
existing
situation.
Furthermore,
an
interesting
idea is
suggested
by
this,
namely,
that
a
country
might
avoid
some
overcentralization
by
having
a
nontransitive
political
and
administrative
system.
A
transitive political
and
administrative
system
is
one
in which
authority hierarchies
are unambiguous
and
effective.
In
such
a
system
a
person can
effectively
tell
someone
lower
in
the
hierarchy what
to
do,
within
of
course,
the
accepted
boundaries
of
the
hierarchy.
Life
then
is like
a
card game,
kings
always
take
queens
,
queens
always
take
jacks,
and
kings
can
take
any
card below
the
queen
because
the
queen
can
take
them.
A
non­
transitive
situation would
be
one
in
which
a
king
might not
be
able
to
take
a
jack
,
even
though
jacks
are usually,
but
not
always,
taken
by
queens.
On
the
other hand,
sometimes
when
we
see
local
government,
local
authority,
or
decentralization,
we
are
not
looking
at
a
system
in which
the
central
government
is
simply unable
to
"take
over,
"
but,
rather,
we
are looking
at
a
system
in which
such governmental phe­
nomena
are
deliberate
creations
of
central
government
or,
though
not
creations
of
central
government,
are
regarded a
positive
and
productive
governmental
phenomena
by
central
government.
How is
this
to
be
explained?
In
such
cases,
I
believe
we
are
seeing
value
integration
between
the
central
and
local
parties.
Value-integration
exists
when
decision-makers
at
local levels
use
similar
criteria
for
making
decisions
'
to
those
that
would
be
used
by
central
authorities
were
the
central
authorities
making
the
decisions.
It
has
been
noted
that
the
Jesuit
Order
of
the
Roman
Catholic
Church
was
the
most
decentralized
of
all
Orders,
and
that
this
was
pos
sible
because
of
the
long
and
intense
period
of
training
during
which
priests
in
the
Jesuit
Order learned
to
think
very
much like
one
another.
At
this
point
it might
be
wise
to
recall
the
observation I
made
earlier
about
emotive
content
in
the
words
we
are
discussing.
Taking
"decentralization"
as
we
defined
it there
is
no
difficulty
in noting
that
the
Jesuit Order was
decentralized
in
many
respects,
just
as
it is
possible
to
note
that
the
Communist
Party
in
Russia,
China,
Yugoslavia
and
other
countries
is decentralized
in
large degree.
However,
if
we
equate
decentraliz
ation
with
democracy
,
then
we
either
have
to
say
that
the
Jesuit
Or
der
and
Communist
Party
are
democratic
organiza­
tions
'
or
deny
that
they
are decentralized.
Let
me
give
you
an
example
of
what
can happen
if
we
do
not
beware
of our
own
verbal
weaknesses.
-7 -
An
American
expert
on
the
Soviet
Union wrote
a
paper
in
which he
first
defined
deconcentration
as
we
are
defining
it
for
this
conference,
namely,
as
the
delegation
of authority
adequate for
the
discharge
of
specified
functions
to
staff of
a
central department who
are
situated
outside
the
headquarters.
Then
he
demonstrated
the
ways
in which
the
Russians
have
deconcentrated
administrative
decision-making
in
the
industrial
sectors.
I
showed
the
paper to
another
American
expert
on
the
Soviet
Union who
said
to
me:
"Very
interesting
paper,
but I
do
not
think
the
Russians
are
really deconcentrating."
I
was
surprised
at
the
reaction
until I
figured
out
that he
was
approaching
the
concept
of
deconcentration
with
a
broader
sense
of
its
meaning
than is contained
in
the
definition
used
by us
here
and
by
the
other Sovietologist.
Another
example
of
this
problem
can be found
in
a
book
on
the
American forest
ranger.
The
author
notes
that
the
reason
central
authorities
in
the
forest
service
give
so
much
authority
to
the
forest
ranger
in
the
field
is
because
the
system of
training
forest
rangers
prior
to
assumption
of
their duties
and
the
techniques
employed
after,
create
a
situation in
which individual
forest
rangers
approach
their
problems
in
almost
the
exact
same
way
that
their
superiors
would
approach
those
problems
if
they
were
in
the
field making
the
decisions.
The
author
goes
on
to
question
whether
or not
this
is
really
decentrali­
zation.
Well,
it is
really decentralization
if you
have
defined
it that
way.
If
you
define
decentralization
as
a
system
in which
local decision
­
makers
use
criteria different from
the
criteria that
centra
l
government
officials
would use
if they
were
in
the field,
then
the
U.
,
S.
Forest
Ranger
service
is not
decentralized,
nor
is
the
Russian
Communist
Par
t
y,
or
the
Jesuit Order.
But let us
remember
our
definitions
.
This
is
not
to
deny
that
some
systems
are formally,
but not
really,
decentralized.
Consider
an
organization
having
a
formally
stated
policy
about
decentralization
but which works
according
to
constant
and
continual
clearance
with people
in
the
upper
reaches
of
the
hierarchy
before
anything
can be
done.
Such an
organization is decentralized
on
paper
but not
in
its
behaviour.
As
we
proceed
during
the
days
ahead I
hope
we
will
beware
of
the
pitfalls
resulting
from
the
pretean
character of
the
word
"decentraliza­
tion" without
using
all
our
time
to
debate
definitions
.
It
is
just as
foolish
to
debate
definitions
only
as
it is
to
enter into
discussion with­
out
some
clear
understanding
about
the
meaning
of words
basic
to
that
discussion.
I
thank you.
-8 -
CENTO
REPORT
OF
THE SYMPOSIUM
ON
DECENTRALIZATION
OF
GOVERNMENT
INTRODUCTION
The
CENTO
Symposium
on
Decentralization
of
Government,
which
is
included
in
the
Schedule
of
Activities
approved
by
the
Economic
Committee,
took place
from
May
13
to
20,
1967.
The
first
three
days
were
spent
in
Tehran
and
Isfahan.
The
remainder
of
the
time
was
spent
in Shiraz.
Under
the
chairmanship
of
Mr.
Morteza Varzi,
leader
of
the
Iranian
Delegation,
meetings
were
held
at Ostandari
Palace,
the
office
of
the
Governor
General
of
Fars
Province.
These
were
attended
by
24
delegates
and
two
observers
from
the five
CENTO
countries.
The
Iranian Ministry
of
Interior
was
host
to
the
Symposium
and
made
local
arrange­
ments;
the
United States
Economic
Coordinator for
CENTO
Affairs
organized
and
financed
the Symposium.
ORGANIZATION
This
Symposium
grew out
of
an
earlier
CENTO Symposium
on
the
Role
of
Local
Government in National
Development
which met in
Turkey from
February
15
to
24,
1965,
and
demonstrated
the
import­
ance
of
this
subject.
Following
the
1965
Symposium,
the
United
States
Economic
Coordinator
invited
Professor
Ralph
Crow of
the
American University
of
Beirut
to
visit
the
regional
countries
to
organize
the
symposium in
consultation
with the
Country
Coordinators
nominated
by
the
regional
governments:
Mr.
Musa
Ahmed,
Pakistan,
Mr.
Arslan
Baj>arir
,
Turkey,
Mr.
Morteza
Varzi,
Iran.
The
co­
ordinators
report
was
issued
as
CENTO
document
EC/
15/
DG/Dl
and
formed
the
basis
for
the
Shiraz
deliberations.
Mr.
Varzi,
Mr.
Baj>arir
and
Dr.
Crow
subsequently
ser
ved
as
leaders
of
their
respective
delegations.
-9 -
The
Coordinators'
report recommended
that
the
Symposium
consist
of
a
small
group
of
part
i
cipants
(abou
t
25)
and
that
the
meeting
be
conducted
as
working
sessions
rather
than
be
taken
up
with
the
formal
reading
of
papers
which
had
already
been
di
stributed
to
t
he
delegates.
Each delegat
ion was
requested
to
submit
in
advance
papers
on
Agriculture,
Public
Health,
and
Rural
Development
in
relation
to
problems
of decentralization.
The
Provisional
Agenda
was
drafted
accordingly
so
that
three
half-day
sessions
were devoted
to
the
consideration of
these
topics
and
the
delegates
were
divided
into
separate
committees
for
that purpose.
Each
Committee
prepared
a
report
and presented
it
to
the
Symposium
at
a
plenary
session.
In
order
to
focus
the
discussion
and
provide
a
basis for
evaluating
the
"optimum
mix" of centralization/decentralization
it
was
suggested to
the
topic
committees
that
consideration
be
given
to
the following
questions:
a.
what
is
the
existing
centralization/decentralization
pattern
b.
what local
conditions
had
to
be
taken
into
consideration
in
establishing
this
pattern;
and
c.
given
these
conditions
and
these
patterns,
how
effective
has
the
program
been in
achieving
its formal
goals?
It
was
hoped
that
each committee would
be
able
to
draw conclusions
about what
combinations
of
these
factors
had
contributed
to
the
effective­
ness
of
this
kind
of program
in different
countries
under
different
conditions.
PROGRAM
IN
TEHRAN,
ISFAHAN,
AND
SHIRAZ
The
program
of
activities
began in
Tehran on Saturday,
May
l3
with
a
briefing
at
the
Ministry
of Interior.
Among
the
topic
s
explained
and
discussed were
the
organizational
plan
of
the
Ministry,
the
frame­
work
of local
government
with
regard
to
municipalities
and
village
councils,
the
responsibilities
of
provincial
governments,
and
the
work
of
the
Municipal
Association
of
Iran.
The
afternoon
was
devoted
to
a
tour
of Tehran,
and
the
evening
to
a
dinner
at
the
Royal
Tehran Hilton
Hotel
gi
ven
by
the
Ministry.
On Sunday
May
14,
the
delegates
went
by
plane
to
Isfahan
where
the
program
included
a
call on
the
Governor
General,
a
tour
of
the
city,
and
a
dinner
given
by
the
Governor
General,
His
Excellency
Engineer
Parsa.
On
Monday
May
IS,
members
of
the
Symposium
travelled by
bus
to
Shiraz.
This
afforded
an
opportunity
to
visit
Abadeh
and
observe
the
economic
development
taking
place
-10 -
there
in
a
town
of
18,
000
and
to
compare
it with changes
in
tp.e
larger
cities.
The
Mayor
of
Abadeh
invited
the
group
to
a
luncheon
at the
Municipal
Hall.
Afterwards,
enroute
to
Shiraz
,
stops
were
made
at
Pasargade
and
Persepolis.
During
the
five
days
in
Shiraz,
the
delegates
met
every
morning
and
afternoon
except for
one
morning
when
they
visited
a
Tribal Settle­
ment
Workshop
130
kilometers
away.
There
they
had
an
opportunity
to
study
the
way
in which
the
Iranian Government
is
endeavouring
to
stabilize
certain
nomadic
elements
in
the
society.
Since
the
delegates
needed
time
to
peruse
the
papers
presented
by
their
colleagues,
and
the
committees
were
engaged
in
drafting
their
reports,
the
afternoon
sessions
usually
began
in
the
late part of
the
day
and
social
activities
were
kept
to
a
minimum.
Nevertheless,
the
Governor
General
of
Fars
Province
,
His
Excellency
Dr.
Nasser
Khator,
Governor
of
Shiraz,
gave
a
dinner
for
th
em.
On
Frid
ay
evening
May
19:
the
Symposium
held
its
final
sessi
on,
and
on
Saturday
May
20,
the
Delegates
returned
to
Tehran
by plane
and
dispersed.
Opening
Session
In the
absence
of the
Governor
General,
who
was
unable
to
attend,
the
Symposium
was
opened
by
the
Economic
Secretary
of
CENTO,
Mr.
LeRoy
Makepeace
,
on
behalf of
the
Secretary General,
Dr.
A. A.
Khalatbary.
The
Leaders
of
the
five
delegations
then
made
opening
statements,
after
which
Mr
.
George
Gurow,
Deputy
United States
Economic
Coordinator
for
CENTO
Affairs,
explained
the
purposes
of
a
CENTO
Symposium
of
this
type.
After
his
election
as
chairman,
Mr.
Morteza
Varzi,
leader
of
the
I
ranian
Delegation,
took
t
he
chair and
gave
a
speech
of
acceptance.
Keynote
Address
Following
the
opening
ceremonies
and
the
election of
the
chairman,
Dr.
James
Heaphy.
Professor
of
the
Graduate
School
of
Public
Affairs,
State
University
of
New
York
at
Albany
,
gave
the
keynote
address
entitlE
"Decentralization
and
Development.
"
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
AND
CONCLUSIONS
The
delegates
and
observers
were
divided
into
three
committees
by
the
Ste
ering
C
ommittee
composed
of leaders
of the
delegations.
-
11
-
Each
committee
held
three
half-day
sessions
during
which
the
respec
­
tive
fields
were
discus'Sed
in
relation
to
the
problems
of decentraliza­
tion.
The
rapporteur
prepared
a
draft
report for
consideration
and
approval
by
the
committee
and
these
three
reports
were
presented
to
the
two
final
plenary
sessions.
REPORT
OF
THE
COMMITTEE
ON
PROBLEMS
OF
DECENTRALIZATION
IN
AGRICULTURE
The
Sub-Committee
on
Problems
of Decentralization in
Agricul­
ture,
first
considered
the
three
reports
on
the
subject prepared
by
Dr.
J.
Rassi of Iran,
Dr.
N.
Karachahisarli
of
Turkey,
and
Dr.
A.
Latif
of
Pakistan.
DECENTRALIZATION
IN
GENERAL
From
the
questions
and
discussions
arising
out of
these
reports
,
it
became
obvious
at
the
very beginning
that
the
subject
of
decentraliza­
tion
in
agricultural
development
could
not
be
considered without first
discussing
the
more
general
problem of finding
the
proper
combination
of
centralized and
decentralized
elements
in
a
country's
administrative
system.
The
Committee,
therefore,
examined
the
following
points
and
made
certain basic
assumptions
leading
to
recommendations
of
a
more
general
nature.
The
problem
of
the
optimum
combination
of
centralized
and
de­
centralized
elements
in
a
given field
of
development
in
a
given
country
depends
on
specific
conditions
prevailing
there
at
a
given
time.
There
­
fore
,
each
case
should
be
judged
on
its
own merit without
prejudice
for
or
against
any
administrative
system
or
procedure.
Economic
and Social
Structure
In
this
respect
the
economic
and
social
structure
of
a
country
is
most important.
The
Committee
found
that
the following
points
deserved
specific
attention:
For
a
proper
devolution
of
authori
ty
to
locally
elected
representa
­
tive
bodies,
it is
absolu
t
ely necessary
that
certain
reforms
leading
to
fundamental
changes
in
the
economic
and
social
structure
of
the
society
must have
already
been
successfully
accomplished
through
centr
al
-
12
-
action.
As
the
economic,
social,
political
and
cultural
development
of
the
individual
cannot
be
considered
outside
the
environmental
elements
that
condition
his
behaviour,
his
mastery of
his
own
destiny
is
closely
linked to
basic
national
reform
policies
ensuring
his
economic
and
social
emancipation.
The
Committee fully
realized
that
this
fundamental
approach
to
the
problem
does
not mean
postponing
the
efforts for
decentralization
to
a
remote
and unknown
date
of
"complete
reformation
in
all
spheres."
Efforts
in
that
direction have
to
be
undertaken
from
the
outse
t,
but
concern was
expressed
on
the
point
t
hat too
much
emphasis
on decentralization
as
a
good per
se
may
shadow
the
primordial
importance
and
urgency
of
economic
and
social
reforms
and
lead
to
illusions
of
unfounded
political
development.
The
members
of
the
Committee
were
also
fully
aware
that no
single
national
operation
such
as
land
reform
is
by
itself
sufficient
to
bring
about
this
emancipation unless
it is
completed
by
others
in
taxation,
education
etc.
Therefore,
a
progressive
approach of continuous
reform
policies,
coupled
with gradual
devolution
of powers
to
locally
elected
bodies,
seemed
to
be
the
proper line
of
action.
In
this
dual
progression
towards
a
balanced
economic,
social
and
political
development,
an
effective
judiciary machinery,
truly
independent
of
any
economic
or
political
influence,
assumes
an
important
role
to
protect
the
individual
both
against
the
economically
powerful
elements
of
his
locality
and
also
against
the
excesses
of
drastic
central
actions
.
The
Committee
also
paid
due
attention
to
the
problem
of filling
the
vacuum
left
by
the
disintegration
or
abolishment
of
the
traditional
leadership
after
national
operations
such
as
land
reform.
If
a
new
leadership
is
not provided
by
the
establishment
of
a
working
politico­
administrative
machinery
at
the
local
level,
or by
centers
of
social
and
cultural
activation
fostering
a
sense
of commitment
on
the
part
of
potential
leaders
to
development
of
their localities,
the
remnants
of
the
old
structure
are
likely
to
reacquire
their
power
and
recreate
the
earlier
conditions.
Since
comprehensive
national
development
plans
are
the
best
tools
of
a
rational
economic
and
social
change,
the
Committee
agreed
on
the
necessity
of,
and
strongly
recommends,
a
harmonization
of
all
dec
e
ntralization
efforts
with
the
requirement
of
long
-term development
plans.
The
apparent
contradictions
between
the
concepts
of
planning
and
decentralization
should
not
discourage
both
the
planners
and
the
administrators from
finding
workable
solutions
and
the
Committee
believes
that
modern
techniques
are
sufficiently
developed
to
ensure
this
necessary
concliliation.
-
13
-
Delegation
of
Authority
In
addition
to
structural
economic
and
social
conditions
that
affect
the
question
of
decentralization
in
general,
the
Committee
dwelled
on
factors
that
stand
in
the
way
of
an
efficient
decentralization
in
the
central
administrative
machinery
itself.
It
realized
that
the
reluctance
of
central administrators
to
delegate
authority
to
their
subordinates
or
to
their
local
agencies
does
not necessarily
stem from
a
personal
inclination
but is,
in most cases,
a
result
of
the
following
"objective
"
circumstances
that
call for
obvious
recommendations.
There
is
usually
a
large
gap
between
the
training
and
the
general
educational
level
of
the
civil
servants
at both
ends
of
the
administra­
tive
hierarchy,
and higher
officials feel
the
necessity
of
a
certain
tutorial
control upon
those
working
under
them.
Efforts
should
there­
fore
be
made
for
developing
the
pre-entry
and
in-service
training
of
the
civil
servants
especially
at the
lower
levels.
This
does
not
of
course
mean a
neglect
of
training
activities
for
the
higher
civil
servants
in
order
to
take
them
away from
routine
functions
and
to
prepare
them
for
better
fulfilment
of
their
basic
and
more
general
responsibilities.
The
lack
of general
knowledge
in
economic
subjects
and
in
financial
technicalities
seems
to
be
one
of
the
main
reasons
to
keep
a
closer
eye
on
the
activities
of
subordinates
and field
agencies.
More
emphasis
should,
therefore,
be
given
to
the
teaching
of
these
subjec
ts
in
various
training
programs.
If such
an
emphasis
produces
a
body
of
civil
servants
capable
of using
effectively
the
various
budgetary
tools
and if
they
are
aware
of
national
economic
priorities,
then
the
integration
of
their
activities
in
broader
national
actions
will
not
require
a
highly
centralized
and
strict
supervision
machinery
but
will
become
in
most
cases
a
natural process
of
adjusting
various
efforts
already
undertaken
in
a
given
direction.
The
complexities
of
budgeting,
auditing
and
spending
procedu
re
s,
\
and
the
inevitable
cent
ralizing
tendencies
inherent in
them,
cons
t
itute
another
factor
that
stands
in
the
way
of
effective
deconcentrat
ion in
the
administrative
machinery.
Any
effort
undertaken
towards
the
simplification
of
these
procedures
will
obviously facilitate
the
decentralization
of
the
governmental
machinery
without
impairing
th
e
fundamental
concern
of protecting public
property
and
public
funds.
Material
difficulties
are
usually
considered
as
a
main factor
precluding
the
employment
of
qualified
personnel
in local
agencies
situated
in
the
most depressed
parts
of
the
countries
concerned.
-
14
-
Therefore,
material
compensations
for
such
cases,
if
skillfully
adjusted with
the
general pay
structure,
may
constitute
another
element
facilitating
administrative
deconcentration.
DECENTRALIZATION
IN
AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT
Parallel
with
these
general
considerations,
the
Committee
examinee
the
problem of decentralization
in the
context
of
agricultural
developmer
Here
the
discussions
centered
mainly on
the
deconcentration
as?ect of
the
problem.
Various
organizational
devices
experimented
in
by
the
countries
concerned
were
explained,
but it became
obvious
that
a
deconcentration
in
agricultural
services
had
to
cope
with
the
general
pattern
of
deconcentration
in
the
respective
administrative
systems.
It
was
noticed,
however,
that
c
ertain
aspects
of
agricultural
develop­
ment
activitie
s,
such as
research
and
training,
show
a
more natural
tendency
to
be
organized
on
the
basis of large
r
territorial units,
and
they
transcend
therefore
some
of
the
lower
echelons
of
administrative
subdivisions.
These functions,
together
with
those
such
as forestry
or
irrigation
scheme
s
which
inevitably
call for
some
kind
of
regional
organization,
seem
to
create
a
general
problem
of boundary
adjust­
ment
common
to
all
the
countries
concerned,
with
a
varying
degree
of
intensity
and difficulty
according
to
cases
.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Keeping
in mind
the
necessity
that
those
aspects
of
agricultural
development leading
to
structural
changes
have
to
be
a
matter
of
national
concern,
the
Committee
tentatively
explored
the
possibilities
of
fostering
agricultural
development outside
the formal
pattern of
conventional
government
action.
In
this
respect,
the
following
points
were
of
mutual
interest
and
some
very
general
recommendations
have
accordingly
been formulated:
A.
Cooperative
organizations
of
small
farmers
should
be
considered
as
tools
for
encouraging
further
agricultural
development
or
means
of
communicating
information,
and
not
as
mere
concerns
of
shorts
i
ghted
rural interests.
Their
activities
can
be
geared
towards
more
specific
goals
of
development
by
means
of
credits
and
other
incentives.
-15 -
B.
State
farms
organized
along
the
lines
of
self-sustaining
public
enterprises
can
constitute
another
way
of
action out­
side
the
formal
government pattern,
especially for
purposes
of
seed
improvement,
selective
breeding,
opening
up
new land
for
cultivation,
or
simply
to
contribute
to
the
whole
agricul­
tural
output
of
the
country
by
efficient
and
modernized
large
scale farming.
C.
Cooperation between farmers
and
governmental
agencies
to
introduce
new
activities
which
have
a
definite
developmental
aspect,
such
as
producing
improved
seeds,
seedlings,
and
improving live
stock
breeds.
D.
Various
devices
can
and
should
be
used
in
order
to
ensure an
effective
utilization
of
the
manpower
trained
in
agricultural
skills.
In
some
cases,
given
the
necessary land
and
the
required
material
and moral
backing,
these
"
agricultural
technicians"
can
become
natura
l
demonstrators
of
new
skills
in
their
areas
and
thus
act
as
the
most
"decentralized,
"
even
"individualized, II
demonstration
centers.
Of
course,
measures
should
also
be
taken
to
keep
them
in
touch
with
the
latest
developments
in
agricultural
techniques
by way
of periodic
programs
in
regional
training
centers,
correspondence
courses,
etc.
In
addition,
there
is
a
continuing
need for
informal
education
in
the
rural
areas,
especially
for
farmers
who
have
not had
the
opportunity
of
a
formal
education.
E.
Voluntary
action in
agricultural
development
should
be
en­
couraged
at
all
levels,
but
he
re
care
should
be
taken fo
r
channelling
this
action
into
the
existing
pattern
of local
government
,
or
at least to
establish
a
closer
collaboration
with it.
Otherwise,
there
is
a
risk
of
superposition,
duplica­
tion
,
or
confusion
with
the
inevitable
r
esult of
condemning
the
existing
or
newly
developing
local
government units
to
administrativ
e
sclerosis.
(Note:
In
addition
to
Dr.
A.
Latif of
Pakistan
as
chairman,
and
Dr.
M.
Soysal of
Turkey
as
rapporteur,
the members
of
the
Commit­
tee
which
prepared
this
report were:
Dr.
Hashemi,
Eng.
Marefat
and
Dr.
Rassi of
Iran;
Dr.
Karacahisarli
of
Turkey
;
and
Dr.
Heaphey
and
Mr.
Prince
of
the
United States
. )
-
16
-
REPORT
OF
THE
COMMITTEE
ON
PROBLEMS
OF
DECENTRALIZATION IN PUBLIC
HEALTH
The
Sub
-
Committee
met under
the
chairmanship
of
Mr.
Anoushi­
ravan Sadr
of Iran,
with
Dr.
Abdur
Rahman
of
Pakistan,
and
Dr.
Garth
N.
Jones
of
the
United States
as
corapporteurs.
They
considered
the
reports
submitted
by
Dr.
Nazir
Ahmad
and
Dr.
Abdur
Rahman
of
Pakistan
and
Dr.
Recep
Heybeli
of
Turkey.
GOALS
AND
FUNCTIONS
OF
PUBLIC
HEALTH
ORGANIZATION
The
Group
agreed
that
efforts
should
be
directed
towards
the
establishment
of
comprehensive
health programs
which
comprise
both
preventive
and
curative
activities.
Such programs
may
be
broken
down
into
five
categories:
1.
Promotion
of
health
2.
Prevention of
disease
3.
Diagnosis
and
prompt
treatment
of
illness
of
individuals
4.
Limitation
of
the
disability
of
individuals
5.
Rehabilitation
of
the
disabled
persons.
To
achieve
these
ends
the
Group
strongly
endorsed the
concept
of
an
integrated health organization
where
the
curative
and preventive
programs
are
merged.
This
includes
the
establishment
of
one
professional
medical
service.
Pakistan
established
such
a
service
and
organization
in
1949,
Turkey
in
1963,
and
Iran in
1964.
Members
of
the
group
stressed
that
it
was
virtually
impossible
in
public
health action programs
to
separate
the
functions
of
preventive
and
curative
health.
Villagers
accept first
curative
and
then
preventive
health
programs.
In
addition,
it
is
extremely difficult
to
interest
medical
professionals
,
particularly doctors
in preventive
medicine.
Medical
doctors
are
inclined
toward
clinical
practice.
Not
only
is it
more
rewarding
in monetary
terms,
but
clinical
practice
is
simpler.
Here
a
professional
is
dealing
with
only one
individual
patient.
The
same
is
not
the
case for
the
field
of
preventive
medicine
where
large
numbers
of
people
are
involved
in
complex
social
settings.
The
major
health problem
in
the
CENTO
countries, however,
is
not
of a
curative
nature.
Control,
if
not
eradication
of
communicable
diseases,
constitutes
the
major
and
urgent
problem.
Organizational
-17 -
structure
must
be
designed
to
cope
with
this
pressing problem,
despite
the
medical
doctorsl
interest
in
curative
medicine.
The
organizational
design
must
be
broadly
concerned
and
marshal
all of
the
dynamic
elements
in
society for
health
improvement.
A
first
step
in
this
direction
is
assuring
that
doctors
are
properly
trained
to
meet public
health
needs.
The
group
fel
t
that
general
practitioners
with
strong
backgrounds
in
preventive
medicine
were
the
best
type
of
Doctor
of
Medicine
for
coping
with
the
present
health problem.
The
Doctor
of
Medicine
must
function
as
a
part of
an
operational
team made
up
of
such
other
pro­
fessionals
as
sanitary inspectors,
public
health nurses,
midwives,
laboratory
technicians,
vaccinators,
and
pharmacists.
Such
persons
must
learn how
to
operate
in
complex
and
changing
organizational
se
t
tings.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE
FOR
PUBLIC
HEALTH
The
Group
agreed
that
organizational
structure
constituted
the
biggest
obstacle for
carrying
out
the
pUbllc
health function.
Involved
are difficult
questions
of
leadership,
agency
relationships,
recruitment
of
qualified
personnel,
maintenance
and
enforcemen
t
of
public
health
standards,
financing,
etc.
In
regard
to
these
and
related
items
a
case
situation
in
Pakis
t
an
was
used
as
a
bas
is
of
discussion.
Case
Problem
in
Pakistan
This
case
problem
is
derived
from
the
paper
submitted
by
Dr
.
Nazir
Ahmad,
"The
Pakistan
Public
Health Problem of
Small
Pox:
Forces
Necessitating
Centralization."
It
was
supplemented
by
a
draft
paper
prepared
by
Dr.
Abdur
Rahman,
"Public
Health Organi­
zation
in
East
Pakistan
. "
The
problem
-
In
the
West
Wing
of Pakistan
the
overall
administrative
responsibility
for
the
control
of
smallpox (and
all
other
communicable
diseases)
rests
with
the
provincial
health
organization.
The
implemen­
tation
of
the
program
is
split,
however,
between
the
provincial
health
organization
and
the
district
health
councils.
Some
of
the
vaccinators
are district
council
employees
and
others
are
provincial
employees
assigned
to
the
districts.
In
the
East
Wing
the
same
situation
prevails
except in
a
more
purposeful
and
systematic
way.
Out
of
the
17
distircts,
12
are under
district council
control
and
5
under
provincial
control.
-18 -
In
short in both wings
a
serious
effort has
been
made
to
decen­
tralize
the
program
of
smallpox vaccination
without
satisfactory
results.
Under
the
careful
review
of
services
performed
in
the
East
Wing,
the
five
provincial
organizations
clearly,
and
by
a
substantial margin,
out­
performed
the
12
district organizations.
There
appears
no
question
that
under
the
pre
sent
public
health
situation
the
activity
should
be
centralized
in
the
provincial
health
departments.
Problem
restated
-
This
problem
restated
applied
to
all
of
the
CENTO
countries:
How
to
organize
most
effectively
and
efficiently
the
scarce
resource
of
technical
and
professional
manpower
to
resolve
critical
and
urgent
health problems,
most
of
which
are
traceable
to
control
of
communicable
diseases.
The
Pakistan Solution
In
Pakistan
the
temporary
solution
adopted
is
to
provincialize
(centralize)
the
health
organization
which will
operate
through
the
four
levels
of
the
Basic
Democracies
system.
Involved
will
be
a
mixed
sys
t
em
of
centralized
and
decentralized features.
The
same
organiza­
tional
system appears
appropriate for
Turkey
and
Iran.
In other words
,
central
government
public
health personnel
are
stationed
at
the
headquarters
of
the
local bodies.
They perform
several
roles.
An
important
role
is
that of
a
local
government
official.
At
the
same
time
they
are
also
responsible
to
the
higher
authority
of
the
centra
organization.
They
are
subject
to
dual
supervision
and
dual
responsibili
(central
and
local government bodies).
This
is
not
an
unusual
situation.
The
county
agricultural
agent of
the
United
States functions
almost in
the
same
capacity.
Most
subordinate
governme
nt
officials
also function
in
this
manner.
The
real
issue
is for
such
persons
to
recognize
this
fact
and
identify
those
roles
that
they
must perform in
the
organizational
settings.
COMMENTS
ON
THE
SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS
The
remarks
here
relate
to
the
specific
questions
put
forward
by
the
organizers
of
t
he
Symposium.
1.
What
is
the
existing
centralization/deconcentration
pattern?
While
the
three
countries
differ
widely on
their
political
system
patterns,
their
administrative
patterns
displayed
a
surprisingly
high
-19 -
degree
of
similarity.
All
have
centralized
public
health organizations
.
The
reason
is
probably
because
these
countries
are
confronted
with
the
same major
problem
of
communicable
disease
control.
Disease
knows
no
administrative
boundaries.
Epidemics
are
frequent
and
widespread.
It is
extremely
difficult
to
cope
with
such
a
problem
with
a
decentralized organizational
system.
Yet
this
fact
poses
the
dilemma of public
health planning.
Temporary
health considerations
dictate
a
centralized health
organization
{control
of
communicable
diseases};
long
run
health
considerations
(eradication
of
communicable
diseases
and
improved
services for
chronic
diseases)
demand
mass
participation
and may
require
decentralized
health
organization.
All
three
countries
are
in various
stages
of
centralization of
their
health activities.
It is desired
that
all
health
programs
be
devolved
to
local
bodies
except
those
which involve
national
safety
e. g.
the
control of
epidemics.
This
requires
a
large
centralized
health organization
for
some
years
to
come.
2.
What
local
conditions
had
to
be
taken
into
consideration
in establishing
this
pattern?
Part of
the
answer
to
this
question
has
already
been
given.
Here
a
number
of
additional
points
will
be
mentioned.
The foremost
consideration
is
the
widely
varying
needs
of
the
regional
areas.
Health
problems
in
the
rapidly
expanding
urban
centers
are
much different from
those
found
in
the
more
traditional
rural
areas:
social
structures
range from
simple
tribal
communities
to
large
and
complex urban
centers.
It
is
imposs
i
ble
to
impose
the
same
organizational
system
upon
each
region.
In
this
regard
there
are indications
that
the
larger
urban
centers
can,
and
should,
maintain
their own
health
organizations.
This
is
asking
too
much from
the
poorer
tribal
and
rural
r
egions.
Direct
central
public
health
service
is
the
only
possible
course
of
action
in
such
regions.
Local
people
mus
t
still
be
trained
in
the
par
t
icipative
aspect
of
the
governmental
process.
This
is
a sl
ow
, p':li
nful
process
.
Wide
­
spread
civic
education
is
required
to
develop
re
sponsible
citize:os.
There
are
evidences
that
petty
political
considerations
often
override
the
implementation
of
urgent
health
measures.
Until
communities
clearly
demonstrate
civic
responsibili
ty
much of
the
public
health function
must be
retained
in higher
professional
organi-
-
20
-
zational
units.
This
does
not
mean
that
irresponsible
political
activity
does
not
occur
on
the
higher
levels
of
administration.
The
whole
matter
is
one
of
the
development
of
civic
re
sponsibility from
the
lowest
to
the
highest
levels.
Constructive
decentralization
of
the
health fun
c
tlOn
will
facilitate
this
process
and
serve
the
end
of
sound
nation
building.
The
Group felt
that
it should
be
kept
in
mind
that decentralization
must
be
rel
a
ted
closely
to
changes
in
social,
political
and
economic
conditions
.
As
noted
before,
uniform
public
health organization
s
are
not
feasible
or
desirable.
Public
health
organization
must
be
so
designed
to
be
responsive
and
adaptable
to
society's
needs
and
demands.
This
requires
alert
top
leadership
and
a
process
of
communication
with
t
he
publi
c.
Institutional
structure for
the
participation
of
local
people
in
the
governmental
processes
needs
to
be
strengthened,
and
in many
cases,
established.
This
is
not
enough,
however.
The
local
inhabitantf
must
learn
how
to
make
responsible
decisions
for
the
well-being
of
theil
individual
communities.
Again
we
say,
they must
learn what
is
required
for
responsible
citizenship.
3.
Given
these
conditions
and
this
pattern,
how
effective
has
the
program
been
in
achieving
its
formal
goals?
Conditions
influencin
g
health
organization
Three
significant factors
conditioning
health
organization
and
practices
were
identified
.
-
The
pattern of
health
problems
will
undoubtedly
change
sub­
stantially
over
the
next
decade.
The
incidence
of
communicable
diseases
will
be
reduced
and
chronic
dis
e
ases
will
becoIT'
_
E'
more
important
in
health
programs.
-
The
wide
differences
in
regional
social
structures
and
cultures
ranging
from
primitive
tribal
regions
to
complex
urban
centers
re
quires
the
design
of
flf>xible
health
organiza
t
ions
.
-
The
he
alth
administration
programs
are
c
omplicated
by
the
rapid
ly
changing
socio-politico-economi
c
environme
n
t.
Eme
rging
patterns
Pakistan
-
The
poli
cy
of
the
Pakistan
government
is
to
strengthen
its
Basic
Democraci
es
Scheme.
This
entails
granting
of
increased
-21 -
health
activities
to
local
authorities,
particularly
the
district
councils.
Turkey
-
Since
1963,
Turkey
as
part of
its
new
health
program,
has
been
engaged
in
a
process
of
centralization
and
integration
of
its
public
health
services.
-
At
present
there
is
not
a
strong
commitment
for
decentralizing
health
activities.
Iran
-
The
Iranian government
is
now
involved
in
decentralizing
part
of
its
health
activities
to
municipal
authorities.
A
law has
been
enacted
which
provides
for
the
establishing
of municipal
councils
in
each major
urban
cen
er
and
the
financing
of
local
health
activities.
Ten percent
of
all
locally
collected
revenues
are
earmarked
for
the
support of
local
public
health.
Tehran has
already
established
a
municipal
health
program.
GOAL
ACHIEVEMENT
The
Group felt
that
it
was
not
possible
to
make
a
determination
as
to
the
extent
of goal
achievement.
In
all
three
countries
standards
of
public
health have
steadily improved.
This
is
evident
in
the
public
health
statistics.
For
example,
Iran has
not
had
a
smallpox
case for
over
ten years.
Malaria has
been
eradicated.
Pakistan
delegates
report that
their nation
is
confronted with
a
major
health
problem for
which
only
limited financial
resources
have
been made
available.
As
the
economies
of
the
CENTO
countries
grow,
the
delegates
believe
that more
resources
will
be
given
to
finance
the
health function.
As
the
situation
now
stands,
the
health function
is
inadequate ly
financed
when
considered
against
the
magnitude
of the
health
problem.
It
was
not
possible
to
examine
the
problem
of finance
in
reference
to
the
total
allocation
of
financial
resources,
but
the
Pakistan
delegation
was
hopeful
that
the
health function
will
be
given
higher
priority in
their
country.
In
a
final
note
on
goal
achievement,
there
is
a
problem
of
the
determination
of
realistic
organizational
goals.
How
such goals
are
determined
is
a
question
that warrants
serious
consideration,
but
was
not
possible
to
explore
in
depth
during
this
subcommittee
meetings.
(Note:
In
addition
to
Mr.
Sadr
of
Iran
as
chairman,
and
Dr.
Rahman
of
Pakistan
and
Mr.
Jones
of
the
United States
as
co-rapporteurs,
the
members
of
the
committee
which prepared
this
report were:
Dr.
Heybeli
of
Turkey,
Dr.
Ahmed
of
Pakistan
and
Dr.
Crow
of
the
United
States. )
-
22
-
REPORT
OF
THE
COMMITTEE
ON
PROBLEMS
OF
DECENTRALIZATION
IN
RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
In
considering
Rural
Development with
emphasis
on problems
of
public
administration,
the
group
looked
at
decentralization
first
in its
relation
to
economic
objectives
and
agreed
on
certain
propositions
as
a
basis for
discussion.
The
developing
economies
of
the
CENTO
region,
while
concentrating
on
industrial
growth,
are
essentially nations
of
cultivators
with
over
three-quarters
of
the
ir
population
in
the
rural
areas.
Their
first
common
task,
especially in
Pakistan,
is
to
increase
food
production
as
rapidly
as
possible
to
keep
ahead
of
the
population
increase.
Central
to
this
task
is
the
need
to
accelerate
the
development
of
infrastructure
for
the
rural
economy,
roads,
markets,
water
supply,
warehouses
etc.,
as
well
as
the
longer
term
social investment
in
services
such
as
education
and health.
The
urgency
and
magnitude
of
these
tasks
involves
not
only
existing
agencies
of
government
but
calls
also
for
the
mobilization
of
capabilities
both
in
management
and
technical
skills
at
all
levels
of
the
community.
Economic
development
aside,
decentralization
has
implications
of
the
highest
importance
for
both
social
and
political
stability.
The
group
then
tu
r
ned
to
consideration
of
the
country
papers
and
the
ways
in which
the
governments
of
the
CENTO
countries
are
attempt­
ing
to
unite
the
efforts
of
the
people
with
the
resources
of
government
in
the
tasks
of
development.
While
effective
comparisons
of
the
village
development
schemes
in Iran
and
Turkey
and
the
rural works
programs
in
Paki
stan
was
limited by
factors
of
sociology,
demography,
history,
and
politics
peculiar
to
each
country
a
number
of
common
elements
and
problems
emerged,
on which
the
group
could
compare
experience.
To
assist in
exchange
of
ideas
and
establish
a
language
of communi­
cation,
a
chart was
made
to
show
the
administrative
divisions
of
the
CENTO
countries
in
terms
of
rough
population
averages.
It
should
be
noted
that figures
can
be
misleading
in
the
sense
that disparities
in
each
country
in
each unit
of
adminis
tr
ation
are
ve
ry
wide.
CHANGING
LEVELS
OF
ADMINISTRATION
The
gro
up
noted
that
the
most important
(
i. e.
operational)
tiers
in
the
above
chart
are
in
West
Pakistan:
the
Di
strict
and
the
Union;
-
23
-
N
.,j:>.
ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS - POPULATION - CENTO REGIONAL COUNTRIES
PAKISTAN IRAN
TURKEY
No. Average No. Ave rage No. Average
Populaticn Population Population
Division {Pak} 16 7,500,000
Provinces (Iran)
21
1.
3m. 67 .5m
District {Pak}
71 1, 600, 000 145 200,000 571 60,000
Sub Province {Iran}
(Turkey)
Thana/Tehsil {Pak} 609 181,000
Bucak {Turkey}
454 60,000
900
35, 000
Baksh {Iran}
Union Councils
} {Pak
Number F.
&
W.
Union Committees} Pak 8,866
Village {Iran}
{Turkey} Average Population 55,000
450 35,700 940
E+W Pak 12,400
-
------ - ------
in
East
Pakistan:
the
District
and
the
Thana;
and
in Iran
and
Turkey
:
the
Province.