A recent study in Pakistan has proved that the integration of various sectors i.e. organizational development, health and disaster management does accelerate the pace of strengthening community resilience (https://www.henrystewartpublications.com/jbcep/v11). The results show that the following initial benefits of sectoral integration could be achieved:
• less fatigue/time-consuming for communities;
• optimum utilisation of resources;
• minimum human resources for maximum outputs;
• cost sharing;
• community involvement;
• easy planning;
• harmonisation of various tools;
• shared ownership;
• cost effective;
• impact-oriented;
• avoids duplication of resources;
• sustainable in terms of local management, ownership and adoption by local communities;
• addresses root causes of vulnerabilities associated with all sectors, and many more.
I have the following queries:
1. Are there any similar findings of sectoral integration in other countries or regions?
2. If yes, why do we need to implement sectoral programs in standalone for strengthening community resilience?
In theory, it should. In practice, it depends how it is implemented. For example, the theory of disaster diplomacy http://www.disasterdiplomacy.org which includes health-related diplomacy http://www.disasterdiplomacy.org/disease.html demonstrates that integration of all sectors is needed to achieve long-term results. In practice, it is hard to do so and remarkable results in the health sector (and others) have been achieved by separating sectors. Yet other case studies have failed precisely because sectors were separated.
For health specifically, see also https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/729 a paper which is free to download. It outlines some of the challenges and opportunities for connecting health with other areas. Its implementation, though, is highly contextual.
In the end, as is typical with development endeavours, the answer is: Know your local context.
Shesh,
Great question!!
This sounds very positive and supports some of the statements by Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs, & Steel" where he looks at community development through the lens of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. Sound community development should address all of the foundations of civilization and over time both individual and the community can start to self-actualize. Long story short, it starts with investment in basic infrastructure which can include water, sanitation, safe homes, education, healthcare, communications, transportation, and economic development. In doing so, community members more from a hunter gatherer mentality and will typically learned to specialize and as the process progresses they will have more time for other activities.
The issue that I have seen is that NGOs, governments, and academics are typically very silo'ed in their approach, which is actually counter-productive as this is rarely sustainable. Based upon the work we are performing in Haiti, a more holistic approach seems to be the best approach and we hope to have results in the coming years to support this approach.
Sincerely,
David Vaughn
Thank you David for sharing your similar experience...My experience in Asia is that every organization or even department within an organization wants to work in solos and regards their approach is their organizational identity. Factors such as power exercise, personal interest, mobilization of resources are triggering their way of working. You may find this in more detail in my paper: https://www.readbyqxmd.com/read/28903811/does-integration-matter-a-holistic-model-for-building-community-resilience-in-Pakistan
- Badges
- Science topic