Social Aspects of Rural Accessibility and Changing Development Context

De: />%20Paper%201.doc

Social Aspects of Rural Accessibility and Changing Development Context

Submitted to
Framework for the Inclusion of Social Benefits in Transport Planning
TRL Limited
Old Wokingham Road
Crowthorne
Berkshire
RG45 6AU
United Kingdom

Thomas R Leinbach
University Research Professor
Department of Geography
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0027
Email:
February, 2003

1


Introduction
In response to this opportunity to reflect on social benefits and accessibility I have several objectives that I
will pursue. First I would like to further examine a theme discussed recently (Leinbach, 2000) on the
changing nature and context of development. Too often we fail to scrutinize rural transport within its
developmental situation and context. This is important with respect to the stimulation and capturing of
social as well as economic benefits. Several issues need to be recognized within this perspective. Second, I
will review briefly some aspects of the social benefits of accessibility. Third, it is important to continue to

point up areas of limited knowledge which must be probed by new research. Some needed directions are
suggested. In this I will attempt to provide some insights on the measurement of social access that could be
utilized in a general way but must be sensitive to local resources and constraints. Since much of my work
has been carried out within Southeast Asia, and especially Indonesia, I will use my experience largely within
this regional laboratory to provide examples and draw observations.
Rethinking the Theory and Practice of Development
Development theory is in the throes of change and new interpretations abound. Indeed some would
argue that development studies have entered a period of crisis. Mainstream frameworks dominant in postwar
development studies seem unable to meet the developing world’s most compelling challenges. Yet newer
alternative frameworks, such as popular development and sustainable development, remain relatively
undeveloped and unexplored (Brohman, 1996). Researchers are only now beginning to grabble with a
conceptual framework to guide related investigations. What is clear is that place context, power and
empowerment, the role of the state, institutions, gender relations and above all people and family oriented
change must be central to our efforts to improve access (Friedmann, 1992).
The last two decades have seen unprecedented changes in the economic, political and social fabric of
most of Southeast Asia. Traditional patterns of livelihood have been dramatically transformed, and this is likely
to continue. Rural situations continue to be transformed as a result of processes of urbanization,
industrialization, trade and technological change. While agriculture of course remains in many ways the heart of
development in rural areas, the viability of such places must increasingly be viewed in terms of non-agricultural
developments because of the need for increased employment and the impacts and linkages to the broader global
economy. There are indeed some arguments suggesting that the end of the peasantry has come to Southeast
Asia even though there is an enduring existence of rural production and of the social and economic circuits of
life and livelihood, which accompany it. But the rural producers of today are productive and enduring only
insofar as they have moved from being peasants into new and different worlds of production, and consequently,
of social and economic life. In fact the rural labor force has been radically reconstituted through its own agency
and that of the broader forces of change (Elson, 1997, 240). Yet it is clear that village economies are
undergoing dramatic change and can no longer uniformly be characterized as isolated, inward looking and selfsufficient based on solely agriculture. This is especially true of villages situated on the fringes of urban areas.
Even for those villages more remote transport improvements have provided stronger linkages to production and
export centers. As the forces of globalization continue to expand and isolation is broken down, new
opportunities and forms of employment have become more and more accessible to rural populations. The quest

for new employment may be driven by a dream to own consumer goods, to obtain necessary funds for
children’s education or simply the need to insure family survival in a precarious agricultural environment. It is
almost a truism that the livelihood patterns and strategies of families increasingly assume non-agricultural or
non-farm employment (e.g. Ashley and Maxwell, 2001; Start, 2001). Despite a growing literature on the nonfarm economy and its associated employment there is much we do not know about how it relates to rural
accessibility. The relevance here is that a stronger non-farm rural economy will certainly drive further the
demand for social needs, especially education and medical care, which are attached to transport in a variety of
ways.
Two other aspects of the current development context need to be considered. First in Indonesia as well
as elsewhere NGOs are an increasingly important aspect of the development impress. In recent years
international organizations and state agencies have recognized the cultural sensitivity, innovativeness, and
dedication of such groups. NGOs as a mechanism for influencing change related to social benefits of transport
may be important because of their flexibility, shallow hierarchies which allow effective collaboration, speed of
operation and ability to respond quickly to changing circumstances. Another advantage offered by NGOs is
their ability to decentralize and debureaucratize development efforts. The small size of many of these NGOs
2


has allowed them to develop direct linkages to local organizations and communities. Their role in
understanding how development (and transport delivery as a part of this) happens through village development
committees and local power structures is not inconsequential.
At a broader scale in Indonesia and elsewhere the matter of the decentralization of decision-making is
now a high priority. Decentralization has many implications for rural transport and its social benefits. Now
well into its second year of implementation, Indonesia’s ambitious decentralization program has made uneven
progress and some would argue has even democratized corruption (Borsuk, 2003). While some employees
have been transferred to regional government payrolls, considerable work needs to be made in establishing the
necessary fiscal, legal, and administrative framework for successful decentralization (Alm, Aten and Bahl,
2001). Lack of political consensus has prevented the national inter-agency decentralization coordinating team
from making progress in designing and implementing a plan for strengthening the regions’ institutions and
capacities (Athukorala, 2002, 145).
The Impact of Rural Access: A Recapitulation

In some ways the exact role of transport in rural development remains ambiguous. But we know that
especially where transport is a 'binding constraint' or is operating in an environment of ‘prior dynamism', i.e.
where factors are ripe, it may act as a catalytic agent (Wilson, 1966). A reliance on the simple supportive
connection between transport and development has thwarted a deeper understanding of the richness of the
connection between the two. Simple static relationships which show that wealth is highly correlated with
mobility clearly do not explain the dynamic effects of providing transport in particular circumstances nor do
they penetrate and illuminate the complex human fabric of development circumstances (Howe and Richards,
1984). Rarely have we been able to execute true ex ante and ex post analyses over significant spatial and
temporal frames. What is required then is a shift from impact emphasis to an improved understanding of
personal mobility. We do know that transport strongly affects everyday needs (e.g. Howe, 1996; Edmonds,
1998). Yet there are few models which capture the needs of personal mobility in dynamic rural
environments which we are witnessing today and allow the recognition of various contextual factors and
especially social concepts. But specifically there has been a lack of attention to transport issues which take
into account family as well as individual needs. The critical importance of the family as a unit of analysis in
development has become clear.
We suspect that transport is critically interwoven with communication and social change and
moreover that access has some effect on employment searches and basic needs acquisition, including the
delivery of health services (Leinbach, 1983a; Leinbach, 1983b). However despite the results that document
these impacts there are many situations where intended impact falls far short of our expectations. We still
know all too little about the ways in which rural transport should be improved and how to deliver benefits to
more needy populations. One reason for this lack of understanding of transport needs and impact is related
to the biases associated with rural poverty. Essentially development needs are more easily seen near urban
areas and along main roads while more remote and inaccessible areas and peoples are ignored (Chambers,
1983; Chambers, 1997).
Local context and environment have a considerable effect on the way roads affect economic and
social change. But the evidence can’t sustain continuing optimism over the positive impact of roads on
poverty. Noteworthy here are the rather widespread incidences of land consolidation, more landless
workers, decline of local industries in the face of outside competition, and the acceleration of out-migration.
Third, road improvements, in contrast to new roads, rarely lead to sharp decreases in the cost of transport,
which is critical to stimulate demand. In addition, land tenancy is often a major factor in determining who

benefits. If the land is unevenly distributed, the landless or land poor will receive little benefit. But if land
is more evenly distributed, road projects will serve poorer households more effectively. We also know that
extent to which development takes place is critically dependent upon the capacity of the local and regional
economy to respond and reallocate resources. Roads fail to achieve desired outcomes where they have not
affected the major determinants of the local political economy nor resolved the basic problems of a
predominantly agrarian system.
Gender does play a role in transport impact in a variety of ways. For example in India, rural women
commuting daily between factory and village were a critical part of a larger set of factors which together
accounted for industrial decentralization (Saith, 1992). Rural road investments in Bangladesh show that
generally the poorest groups, especially destitute women, do benefit as it is from this segment of society that
3


workers are recruited for intensive labor construction efforts. Yet concerns for leakages in the resources
made available undermine this positive benefit. From this experience it is also clear that owner operated
transport and especially affordable and reliable transport services are the essential mechanism through which
broader changes take place. But political influences through regulation of fares and other constraints can
undermine this effect. More broadly it is clear that there exists strong biases against asset-poor villagers’
realization of benefits from road investments compared with the wealthier strata of the village population
(Howe, 1994).
Too often the analysis of the impact of improved accessibility has focused only on economic criteria.
Yet just as commodities flow over the linkages of a road network so too do ideas and news about
innovations, technology and new techniques. Results from Indonesia show a comparison of the impact of
improved roads between urban fringe and more remote locations. The findings suggest that improved access
did have an effect on the search for employment. But five times as many respondents in the urban fringe
groups, as opposed to the remote rural groups, claimed that transport improvements were influential in the
search for employment (Leinbach,1983b).
Location of employment is clearly important as it affects women in the labor force. Decentralized
approaches to production in which little mobility is required of a female labor force a consequence of can
have huge benefits for both the economic and social aspects of transport improvements. Female labor

mobility is obviously related to productive and reproductive activities through the family life cycle and the
gendered division of labor (Watkins, Leinbach and Falconer, 1993). But how much do we really know about
the way in which transport deficiencies affect the role of women in development (e.g. Bryceson and Howe,
1993)?
Finally it is clear that while rural road infrastructure in Indonesia and elsewhere has expanded
tremendously over the last two decades, there are still many communities that lie in an access shadow.
Moreover despite upgraded physical networks in some rural areas, affordable, flexible and reliable transport
services are still a rarity (Repogle,1991). The regularity, cost, and efficiency of the services is in some ways
more important in influencing access to social services and employment acquisition.
Rethinking Approaches to the Engagement of Transport in Contemporary Rural Development
As I have noted elsewhere what we need ultimately is a reoriented conceptual framework which
effects a more meaningful approach to the ways in which transport must engage nuances of a dynamic rural
development (Leinbach, 2000). Such a framework must of course explicitly incorporate economic but
equally important political and social considerations. It must close the conceptual gap between the
traditional ways development and the use of the transport system has been viewed and the socio-economic
reality of the development situations in which the transport system functions. In this effort it is clear that
micro-scale approaches are going to be much more useful than the macro-scale, holistic views of transport
relationships in development. How do we begin to approach the construction of a new framework for
understanding transport in development context?
As we review the evidence, the degree to which livelihoods are improved is critically dependent
upon the capacity of the local and regional economy, and especially its institutions to respond and
particularly to reallocate resources. Transport, in a variety of ways, must be central in this process. A major
emphasis must be the aspect of non-farm employment as overwhelming evidence points to the seminal role
of such income in both family advancement and survival strategies. While clearly landlessness and
ecological decline must be addressed in many areas in others a more rewarding approach will be to
investigate and show how social capital, i.e. population skills, etc, can be developed through effective
delivery of critical ingredients—one of which is transport. Entrepreneurship and physical access to local
advisory services is one example. Transport relations can be inserted into this theme in several ways. For
example, how do various barriers (social, economic, political and physical) constrain individuals from
seeking non-agricultural employment and engaging in particular opportunities? Indeed the development of

transport enterprises and employment in the transport sector are key topics worth exploring in this
connection.
The focus on adequate transport within the changing dynamics of urban-rural relations is important as
the household is restructured and becomes more diversified. Genders and generations renegotiate their
respective roles. One useful approach toward achieving some greater understanding of small-scale
4


development situations and especially the role of access may be to explore the utility of variations of the
political economy theme. The objective here is to learn how individual producer incentives and accumulation
could be enhanced. In this analysis the key actors and decision-making processes and institutions at the village
level may be isolated as dominant elements in our new understanding. It is critically important as we use
transport to foment development that we recognize local power structures and decision processes.
Related to this theme of non-farm employment and activities (and social extensions) is the intriguing
concept of the family mode of production (FMP) as advanced by Lipton (1984). In his view the FMP is
oriented toward capturing the flexibilities of resource use in household forms of production whether in
agriculture or non-farm economic activities (Ellis, 1993). The key to understanding the family mode of
production (FMP) is fungibility or "the extent to which a rise or fall in the availability of a 'resource' can be
treated as if it were a change in cash funds, and thus converted swiftly, conveniently and without loss into a
change in whichever input, to which activity, maximizes benefit" (Lipton, 1984:191). Thus the peasant
household enterprise (PHE) as a unit of both production and reproduction, and in exercising control over both
labor and capital, may easily and efficiently shift resources internally in response to changing conditions.
Capital and labor resources will meet productive or consumptive needs according to priorities, say by restricting
immediate consumption for investment in a petty productive enterprise, or using petty capital to meet basic
household needs during a reproductive crisis. This can be done through shifts in resource allocation in time (i.e.
between seasons), space (i.e. from one area of production to another), and/or within the family (i.e. between
generations, siblings, etc.). Thus, in the “FMP there exists extended fungibility (EF) of resources between
production, preparation of consumables...and reproduction of the family’s capacity for both of these” (Lipton,
1984: 191-2).
In Lipton’s terms, therefore, where peasant households operate simultaneously a number of incomegenerating activities ranging from subsistence production, petty trade and services, and petty commodity

production, to agricultural and off-farm wage labor, the flexibility of resource use is considerable and
allocation decisions rather complex. Distance from the political core (i.e. urban areas) also allows for the
growth of the FMP in rural areas at a greater rate than in urban ones. The survival of the FMP, particularly
in rural areas of the developing world, and the decisions people make in order to survive. He also stresses
the importance of broadening the definition of FMP to include the multiple sets of tasks and activities that a
family (and its members) engages in for survival. His work provides an important set of analytics,
particularly the concept of fungibility and extended fungibility, which is well worth examining in an
empirical context.
A key final point here is that fungibility and extended fungibility are spatial concepts.
Resource allocation is a spatial phenomenon and is dependent on, but also modified by, the spatial contexts
in which social actors engage in FMP enterprises. A FMP enterprise, therefore, may choose to shift its
human and capital resources spatially to deal with spatial factors, a new road or the growth or contraction of
their community, for example. They may modify their behavior in relation to the influx of state agents
during particular periods of time (i.e. during growing seasons when extension agents are more active or
during periods of social unrest in urban areas). The spatial extent of a FMP enterprise is thus fluid in time as
it is in space.
Given the clear importance of fungibility an effort must be made to relate this to household travel
demand and personal mobility needs. A basic deficiency of current knowledge is that reliance on market
demand models has led to an undifferentiated view of the benefits and costs of work performance to
household members. In this way the issue of gender bias at the intra-household level does not arise. The
fallacy here is the lack of understanding of the transport needs of the subsistence-producing household,
which may allocate its survival tasks on the basis of contextual factors, rather than optimizing market
principles. Case studies in Indonesia have begun to demonstrate the ways in which fluidity in economic and
social options are constrained or removed by transport infrastructure and services (Leinbach, 2003a).
Delivering Infrastructure and Measuring Benefits
The delivery of infrastructure takes on many forms but among the most intriguing are those tied to
so-called poverty alleviation efforts. Indonesia’s Cash Incentive Program attempted to provide income
injections to the poorest districts while constructing new or rehabilitating old infrastructure that would
deliver long term benefits. The construction of rural roads have been the most important aspect of the
program. Evidence from an analysis of a sample of road projects reveals that projects drew regularly

5


scheduled mini-bus services after the upgrading. This broad expansion of accessibility is sometimes referred
to as “the Colt Revolution” in Indonesia where Japanese manufactured Colt passenger vans form the vehicle
stock for the services. But, in addition, other forms of mobility emerged that had impacts on the movement
of goods and marketing of crops. Before the roads, vehicles could not enter many of the areas and
transportation service was irregular. But clearly, even after regularly scheduled services were delivered,
many families still find such services too costly and continue to use traditional means of transport such as
bicycles and back loads.
The above evidence emphasizes the principle that the nature of the environment also greatly affects
the impact. We often tend to forget that impact of a road depends upon the physical, social and economic
environment through which it passes. Poor development status and a low incidence of off-farm employment
(as noted above) and lagging agricultural environments where precipitation is highly variable can have a
strong effect on what impact occurs as a result of road upgrading. As an example in the wet season,
commerce is interrupted but in the dry season traders and consumers are more mobile. In addition the
expansion of cash crops –such as simple root crops—was quite common in many areas as a result of a new
road placement where previously crops could not be marketed without the road. More dramatic changes
would certainly result in an area where a diversified set of activities and stronger non-farm incomes were
present.
In many cases a general expansion of mobility occurred—distinct increases in trip frequencies to
markets were measured. But especially important was a greater awareness as well as increased use of simple
medical facilities and especially family planning information available through these simple rural health posts
called posyandu (Leinbach, 2003b). Small local businesses expanded after construction—but many declined
and disappeared in a very competitive environment where the consumer field was too small. On the other
hand, select small industries were beneficiaries of the access improvement and have endured—in part because
of the unique need they fulfill. Simple sugar making operations and rattan weaving are illustrations of the
positive economic impact that resulted.
Too revisit the idea that one aspect of road impact is the improvement of information and technology we
may again note again that just as commodities flow over roads so too do ideas and information related to

family planning and other innovations as noted above. A simple hand operated threshing machine was one
example of an innovation that diffused into the region under improved access (Leinbach, 1983b).
Widespread use occurred as a result of the new roads. But a question of this and other innovations,
particularly in densely populated areas, is: What are the real benefits when machines displace labor rather
than create employment? It was also clear in numerous situations that out-migration from the project area
occurred as a result of the improved access and resultant decrease in demand for labor (Leinbach,
1981;Leinbach, 1983a). Both of these situations suggest that the interrelationship between access
improvement and information change is complex and can bring deleterious effects. Further despite the
positive aspects of the impact of roads built under labor intensive, poverty alleviation programs, both
mounting social and economic evidence shows that this approach is not an effective way to deliver transport
infrastructure efficiently nor is it a cost effective way of alleviating poverty (Daly and Fane, 2002). Other
recent reports which attempt top capture the nature of impact are Cook and Cook, 1990, Khisty, 1993, and
Mazlumolhosseini, 1990.
A variety of non-traditional methods have been utilized to measure social and economic benefits in
rural infrastructure provision. Building on the Indonesian examples above, one effort has attempted to
capture both social and economic impacts while isolating a “best” set of rural road projects for
implementation (Leinbach and Cromley, 1983; Leinbach, 1988; Leinbach and Cromley, 1989). Here a goal
programming methodology is utilized where a set of criterion variables measuring key outcomes is selected.
Examples of criterion variables are the total population (or subsets of this) affected in each project as well as
internal access, integrated development potential, bridge costs, and seasonal unemployment levels.
Subsequently, some attainment or expectation levels are derived. These show the minimum population that
needs to be served, the maximum road length per project, the maximum off-season unemployment, etc. The
criteria are then grouped in priority levels. For example a set of projects might be selected where the most
critical variables emphasize the total population served, lack of competing roads, number of facilities served,
employment opportunities for women, and the contribution of the access to integrated development. The
solution method allows utilization of a weighting factor to determine how much increase in one variable is
necessary to offset a decrease in another variable at the same priority level. Sensitivity analyses can be
6

carried out by switching variables, creating weights and altering priorities associated with each to simulate
potential outcomes given specific and alternative objectives. These objectives may emphasize and weight
social aspects of development. For example to what degree does a particular road project capture women’s
potential participation in the labor force, access to educational opportunities, etc. While the paper cited uses
a mathematical programming technique the derivation of a simpler model for use and implementation at a
local level would be fairly easy to construct. Further the same methodology can be utilized to integrate
transport projects into local development combined with social objectives (Leinbach and Cromley, 1989).
Another approach to the selection of road projects not dramatically dissimilar from that above, when
the specific objective is poverty reduction is carried out by van de Walle (2002). Here an attempt is made to
develop an operational approach that is grounded to a public economics framework in which efficiency and
equity concerns are inseparable, information is incomplete in important ways, and resources are limited. A
key problem addressed is that an important share of the benefits to the poor from rural roads cannot be
measured in monetary terms. Using Vietnam as an illustration, the proposed methodology aims to identify
places where poverty is high, economic potential is high and access is low.
In addition, another approach develops and implements a method for nonparametrically estimating
the benefits from road projects at the household level using the relationship between the value of farmland
and its distance to agricultural markets (Jacoby, 1998). The empirical analysis, using data from Nepal,
suggests that providing extensive road access to markets would confer substantial benefits on average, much
of these going to poor households. The value of this piece is the use of a non-parametric model where social
variables could be exchanged to begin to measure benefits of this nature at the household level.,
Finally still another example of a recent attempt to measure accessibility benefits is that by Odoki,
Kerali and Santorini (2001). This methodology provides an integrated approach to analyzing accessibility
by considering all constraints faced by individuals, particularly their income. As in the methodology above
the derivation of a much simpler application adjusted for social benefit inclusion would seem appropriate to
accommodate the increasing need to foster decision-making and planning at the local level under
decentralization.
One argument which supports this view is that a major underlying cause for the failure of
governments to sustain investments in facilities lies with the incentives facing participants in the design,
finance, construction and use of facilities. Basically when road infrastructure deteriorates after construction,
it may be assumed that the actors involved in the initial development process were submitting to incentives

that essentially rewarded them for actions that resulted in unsustainable investment (Ostrom, et al.,1993). It
must be stressed that incentives are not simply financial rewards or penalties. They basically are the positive
and negative changes in personal outcomes that individuals perceive and which result from particular actions
taken within a set of rules in particular spatial, social, political and economic contexts. This position
assumes that there are reasons why individuals involved in the delivery of transport do what they do. The
choices and decisions which people make regarding the use of services and facilities purposely or
inadvertently benefit or harm others because of the interdependence which exists in settlement situations. In
other words individuals who were rewarded to create the road were not rewarded to maintain it.
An additional issue which is already of immense importance as we consider design-making for
accessibility is the notion of decentralization. It is clear that decentralization is increasingly important
because informed decisions must now be made by local institutions which have had little experience in
assessing budgets and complex resource allocation. This is true not only in Indonesia but elsewhere as well.
The point here is that the form of transport ownership and operation and especially the delivery mechanisms
obviously need further inquiry. Such analysis can also illuminate our understanding of the interrelationship
between development (perhaps specifically in this case the changing role of the state) and transport
requirements.
Following this line of argument, one possible new approach to viewing the interrelationship between
transport and development lies in an enlarged understanding of the institutional bases of transport. This
involves an examination of the matter of provision and production of rural and regional facilities and
includes questions of rent seeking, joint use, and economies of scale (Ostrom, et al., 1993). But more
important are deeper inquiries into the individuals surrounding the facilities, the associated incentives and
transaction costs. An additional obvious thrust for analysis along these lines is an inspection of institutional
arrangements relevant to the structure in its spatial and socio-economic context.
7


In summary one prescription for a new thrust in research on transport and development is twopronged: a “political economy” and a “rational institutional” approach (Leinbach, 1995; Leinbach, 2000).
Clearly we can greatly increase our ability to understand the larger incentive system by including a political
economy approach. This involves a new examination of development schemes by expanding our concept of
production to include the important role of women in local economies, the incentives that drive those who

control transport resources and a deeper understanding of rural household travel demand and factors which
influence such demand (Barwell, 1996; Grieco, Apt and Turner, 1996). But most critical again are changes
in priorities for transport policy which must meet broader human needs instead of mainly those of elite
groups as has traditionally been the case (Heggie, 1989). While obviously informal transport cannot replace
motorized forms, it can serve a high portion of local travel needs where settlements have as yet no higher
order access and affordable services are not existent. But in addition, and not unrelated, it may behoove us
to explore the relations between transport and development through a "rational institutional approach"
(Edmonds, 1982). In this light our inquiry indeed assumes a strongly behavioral posture where "actors" are
pointedly rational and seek to maximize material goals in the face of uncertain information concerning
alternative behaviors. The fungibility notion of Lipton in both economic and social contexts and the
conversion of resources fits well here. But more critically it assumes that the institutional setting plays a
critical role in defining those decision situations. These two approaches do fit together for the first assumes a
deeper understanding of transport needs and constraints. Given this, intervention and delivery strategies
must take into account, even in remote rural areas, the institutional connections of accessibility.
As a social scientist I remain convinced that empiricism must continue to lead our knowledge
building on rural access. Thus I must make a closing plea. That is we need deeper analyses of access
situations that produce both social and economic benefits. Especially important is that we must assimilate
and integrate our knowledge from the variety of studies which have addressed household activity patterns
(e.g. Barwell, 1996; Bryceson and Howe, 1993; Edmonds, 1998; Recker, 1995; Vadarevu and Stopher, 1996)
and join this information with a new focus on non-farm employment in family context. How do successful
(not rich but ordinary) families utilize access and how are their needs met as their livelihood patterns change
with fungibility over time ? The process model below provides one example of livelihood dynamics in
which access figures greatly (Leinbach and Watkins, 1998). But we must articulate this more clearly and
systematically. Especially critical in this schematic are the ways in which social (quite apart from mobility
associated with work) needs for transport change with household strategies and family life cycle behaviors
where women especially are central contributors with productive and reproductive participation (see Figure
1 below; Leinbach and Watkins, 1998).
But important too obviously are the ways in which transport access has been successfully provided in
these contexts whether by non-governmental, private or public intervention. Which individuals or groups are
gate keepers in situations where transport provision for the common good is involved? How are decisions

made? It seems also that some key information for future application can be gained in examining more
dynamic as opposed to laggard rural communities in Southeast Asia and elsewhere that are experiencing a
breakdown of isolation and are engaged in and linked, both forward and backward, with a regional and
global economy. Admittedly situations where change has not come about as quickly are important also.
Here the role of access in poverty alleviation and social safety net programs must be addressed.

References
Alm, James, Robert H Aten, and Roy Bahl. “Can Indonesia Decentralize Successfully? Plans, Problems, and
Prospects”. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 37, No 1 (April, 2001): 83-102.
Ashley, Caroline and Simon Maxwell (2001) Rethinking Rural Development. Development Policy Review
19 (4): 395-425.
Athukorala, Prema-chandra. (2002) “Survey of Recent Developments”. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic
Studies 38 (2): 141-162.
8


Barwell, Ian (1996). Transport and the Village: Findings from African Village-Level Travel and Transport
Surveys and Related Studies. World Bank Discussion Paper No. 344. Washington, D.C., 1996.
Borsuk, Richard (2003) “Corruption, Decentralized”. Asian Wall Street Journal, January 28, A-7.
Brohman, John (1996) Popular Development: Rethinking the Theory and Practice of Development. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Bryceson, Deborah Fahy and John Howe. (1993). "Rural household transport in Africa: reducing the burden
on women". World Development. 21,11: 1715-29.
Chambers, Robert. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London: Longman.
Chambers, Robert. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the Last First. London: Intermediate Technology
Publications.
Cook, Peter D and Cynthia C Cook (1990). “Methodological Review of Analyses of Rural Transportation
Impacts in Developing Countries”. Transportation Research Record 1274: 167-178.
Daly, Anne and George Fane. (2002) “Anti-Poverty Programs in Indonesia” Bulletin of : Indonesian
Economic Studies 38, No. 3 (December): 309-329.

Dixon-Fyle, Kanyhama. (1998). Accessibility Planning and Local Development: the application
possibilities of the IRAP methodology. Geneva: ILO.
Edmonds, Geoffrey. (1998) Wasted Time: The Price of Poor Access. Geneva: ILO.
Ellis, Frank (1998) Household Strategies and Rural Livelihood Diversification. The Journal of Development
Studies 35 (1): 1-38.
Elson, R. E. (1997) The End of the Peasantry in Southeast Asia: a Social and Economic History of Peasant
Livelihood, 1800-1990s. Canberra: St. Martin's Press.
Friedmann, John. (1992) Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Grieco, Margaret, N. Apt, and J. Turner.(1996). At Christmas and on Rainy Days: Transport, Travel and the
Female Traders of Accra. Aldershot: Avebury/Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Heggie, Ian. (1989). "Reforming transport policy". Finance and Development. 26,1:42-44.
Howe, John. (1994). “Infrastructure Investment in Bangladesh: Who Really Benefits and How? IHE Delft
Working Paper IP-6, August.
Howe, John. (1996) Transport for the Poor or Poor Transport? A general review of rural transport policy in
developing countries with emphasis on low income areas. IHE Working Paper IP-12, October. Delft: IHE
Delft.
Jacoby, Hanan G. (1998). Access to Markets and the Benefits of Rural Roads: A Non-Parametric Approach.
Washington, D.C. Development Research Group, The World Bank.
Khisty, C. Jotin. (1993) “Transportation in Developing Countries: Obvious Problems, Possible Solutions”.
Transportation Research Record 1396: 44-49.
Killick, Tony. (2001) Globalization and the Rural Poor. Development Policy Review 19 (2): 155-180.
Leinbach, Thomas R. (1981) Travel Characteristics and Mobility Behavior: Aspects of Rural Transport
Impact in Indonesia, Geografiska Annaler, Ser.B., 63: 119-29.
9


__________________ (1982) Towards an Improved Rural Transport Strategy: The Needs and Problems of
Isolated Third World Communities. Asian Profile, 10: 15-23.
__________________ (1983a) Transport Evaluation in Rural Development: An Indonesian Case Study.
Third World Planning Review, 5: 23-35.

___________________ (1983b) Rural Transport and Population Mobility in Indonesia, Journal of
Developing Areas, 17: 349-364.
__________________. (1988) The Utility of Goal Programming Heuristics in Decentralized Development
Planning: The Case of Accessibility, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 9 (2): 86-95.
__________________ (1995) Transportation and Third World Development: Review, Issues, and
Prescription. Transportation Research. 29A (5): 337-344.
__________________ (2000) Mobility in Development Context: Changing Perspectives, New
Interpretations, and the Real Issues. Journal of Transport Geography, 8 (1): 1-9. (1999 Fleming Lecture in
Transportation Geography, Association of American Geographers, Honolulu, 1999)
__________________ (2001) Transport Infrastructure Challenges in Urban Southeast Asia: Financial Crises,
Liberalization, and Sustainability. in Carla Chifos and Ruth Yabes
(eds.) Southeast Asian Urban Environments: Structured and Spontaneous. Tempe: Arizona State University
Press, 115-132.
___________________ (2003a) Small Enterprises, Fungibility, and Indonesian Rural Family Livelihood
Strategies. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 44 (1):7-34.
___________________ (2003b) Rural Accessibility Decision-Making: Issues of Integration, Scale, and
Sustainability. in Gregoire LeClerc and Charles Hall (eds.). Making Development Work. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
__________________ and Robert Cromley (1983) A Goal Programming Approach to Public Investment
Decisions: A Case Study of Rural Roads in Indonesia. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 17: 1-10.
__________________ and Robert Cromley (1989) Modeling Integrated Development Investments in Rural
Areas: An Indonesian Illustration, International Regional Science Review, 12 (2 ): 229-243.
__________________ and John Watkins (1998).Remittances and Circulation Behavior in the Livelihood
Process: Transmigrant Families in South Sumatra, Indonesia. Economic Geography. 74 (1): 45-63.
Lipton, Michael (1984) Family, Fungibility, and Formality: Rural Advantages of Informal Non-Farm
Enterprise Versus the Urban-Formal State. In ed., S. Amin (ed) Human Resources, Employment and
Development Vol. 5, Developing Areas,. New York: St. Martin's Press, 189-242.
Mazlumolhosseini, Ali (1990). Relationships Between Social and Economic
Development and Access to Rural Roads in Developing Countries. Transport Research Record 1274: 179194.
Ostrom, Elinor, Larry Schroeder and Susan Wynne. (1993). Institutional Incentives and Sustainable

Development. Boulder: Westview Press.
Recker, W.W. (1995). The household activity problem: general formulation and solution.
Transportation Research B 29 (1): 61-77.
10


Repogle, M A. (1991). Sustainable Transportation Strategies for Third World Development. Transportation
Research Record 1294: 1-8.
Saith, Ashwani (1992) The Rural Non-farm Economy: Processes and Policies. Geneva: ILO.
Sieber, Niklas. (1996). Rural Transport and Regional Development: The case of Makete District, Tanzania.
Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Start, Daniel (2001) The Rise and Fall of the Rural Non-Farm Economy: Poverty Impacts and Policy
Options. Development Policy Review 19 (4): 491-505.
Vadarevu, R.V. and P.R. Stopher. (1996). Household activities, life cycle, and role allocation. Transportation
Research Record 1556: 77-85
van de Walle, Dominique. (2002).Choosing Rural Road Investments to Help Reduce Poverty World
Development 30 (4), April: 575-589.
Wiggins, Steve and Sharon Proctor (2001) How Special Are Rural Areas? Development Policy Review 19
(4): 427-436.
Wilson, George. (1966). Towards a theory of transport and development in G.W Wilson, B.R. Bergmann,
L.V. Hirsch, M.A. Kleig (eds.) The Impact of Highway Investment on Development. Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institute.

Figure 1 Schematic Model of Household Livelihood Strategies (after Leinbach and Watkins, 1998)

11