Macro-Meso-Micro refers to the level of policy and institutions that govern and influence development activities in all sectors. Development and growth are typically associated with macro-level economics and "top-down" approaches, but this has more recently been superseded (outmoded) by poverty reduction approaches from the "bottom-up", with an emphasis on community empowerment and capacity building at the grass-roots. Broadly speaking, the following definitions describe each of these levels:
- Macro: Large in scope or extent-global/national level institutions and policies
- Meso: Intermediate/in the middle-provincial/district level institutions and policies
- Micro: Grass-roots/Community level institutions and policies
The distinctions between macro, meso, and micro levels remain arbitrary and depend on the size of the country in which the distinction is made.
At the meso-level, it becomes to identify sectoral programs and local plans or projects within the various sectors and to integrate the programs and plans in space and time.
At the micro-level, the regional plans can result in mutually adjusted local plans that have been worked out in such detail that cost-benefit calculations are made.
Governmental planning can be either horizontal or vertical. Horizontal planning can be done at the national, regional, or local level, and is called horizontal because it attempts to analyze and integrate the various aspects of the planning object at one specific (administrative) level. Vertical planning, aka sectoral planning, follows an approach per specific sector by which it analyzes and integrates the various aspects of the relevant sector through the whole range of administrative levels.
The interrelationship between the various types of planning can be described in two ways, viz. top-to-bottom, and bottom-to-top approaches.
In the bottom-to-top procedure, local plans are formulated at the base, either by the local population, by government officers working at the local level, or by a joint effort of both. Such projects can be aggregated into the village, sub-regional, regional, and sector plans, which in turn, can be combined to form the national plan.
In the top-to-bottom procedure, the national plan provides a framework for national development activities. These activities are formulated in more detail in the sector and regional plans, which, in turn, provide a framework for local plans, projects, and programs.
In reality, both procedures are necessary. To bring about development that relates to the needs of the local population and yet remains within the means and power of the government, two-way communication is essential.
 |
| Macro-Meso-Micro Planning |
As can be seen from the figure, planning at the regional (meso) level has an important integrative function in the total process of planned development. The level of regional planning is that level at which the projects formulated at the base of society can be integrated into a regional framework that contributes to the national goals; or the other way round, it is the level at which national and sector plans are detailed into local plans, and are integrated into a regional framework for local action.
Meso-planning should function in the aggregation process (bringing together the local plans into greater entities of action programs) and in the disaggregation process (dividing the national and sector strategic plans into more detailed tactical plans).
The top-to-bottom approach can also be called the functional procedure. In this procedure, the national (macro) plan or its equivalent defines the functions that the various regions of the country will have in the development process of the country as a whole for the coming plan period.
The bottom-to-top approach can be termed the resources procedure because the development plan is based on an assessment of the potentials of the region (physical, economic, and social).
If the bottom-to-top procedure is not harmonized with a top-to-bottom procedure, the first will nearly always result in a long list of local plans, of which only a limited number can be implemented, even if self-reliance at the local level is stimulated. The result will be a feeling of disappointment among the people.
A top-to-bottom approach that doesn't take into account the information supplied by the bottom-to-top approach will produce theoretical planning documents that the people find neither relevant nor interesting. It will then become difficult if not impossible, to mobilize that most important resource, the working power of the local population without which no plan can succeed.
(Similarly, macro-meso-micro planning can be done at each regional level too.)
The importance of macro-meso-micro level linkages in any community cannot be overstated. At the macro-level, holistic national strategies are required on issues such as poverty, rural development, and local economic development for the planning and development of programs. The meso-interface between the micro-planning interwoven with macro-level policies is best managed at the district level, where services can be much more responsive. For this to be effective, decentralized policies and action are required.
Comments
Post a Comment