One Village Two Products (OVTP) Rural Development Model: The Case of Ikeleng’i  District in Zambia  

One Village Two Products (OVTP) Rural Development Model: The Case of Ikeleng’i  District in Zambia  

Elijah Julaki Muchima¹ and Jason Mwanza^2 
1Graduate School of Business, University of Zambia
²School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Zambia

Received: 26 February 2023; Accepted: 10 March 2023; Published: 06 April 2023

ABSTRACT

The search for the best locally led development alternatives to promote local economic development have been attempted in in South East Asia and some parts of Africa particularly to enhance rural livelihoods where top to bottom approaches have failed. This paper investigates the development of One Village One Product and or One Village Two Products for Ikeleleng’i a rural district in the North-western Province of Zambia as a model to improve the livelihoods of an agrarian depopulation. A complex tri phased mixed methods design rooted in methodological pragmatism was applied. The main findings are that in order for people to have improved livelihoods and incomes, the village ought to be centre of production. At village level, it is proposed to have One Village One Product” (OVOP) or One Village Two Products” (OVTP). Villagers may consider concentrating on pineapple as a single product or two products which may include pineapple and honey. The OVOP or OVTP model could be achieved if villagers coordinated their production and marketing activities closely and operated in corporatives. The conclusion drawn from this study is that locally led development modelsseem elsewhere may serve as instruments of socio-economic change. They could also of immense help tolocal authorities as well as central governments in solving under development problems. Thepaper’s call to action therefore is to change the mind-set of development actors at the central level. It is recommended that Ikelengi local authority and the central government adopt a pragmatic thinking approach and give value to evidence based developmental researchlike this paper espouses to consider employing transformative participatory approaches in rural development. The success of implementingOne Village One Product and or One Village Two Products framework in Ikeleng’i could be transferred to other districts once successful.

Key words: Model, community led development, Ikeleng’i and Local Authority

INTRODUCTION

The current population of Zambia is 19,764,615 as of Friday, March 10, 2023, based on World meter elaboration of the latest United Nations data (UN Data, 2023). One of the most significant features for Zambia is the extremely high inequalities, which make the country very divided especially between urban and rural areas. On the countryside 76.6 percent of the population live in poverty (Poverty Analysis Zambia, 2018). While the larger percentage of the population lives in rural areas, the country has significant development deficits especially in rural areas such that economic growth and development and rural poverty remain permanent threats to sustainable livelihoods. It should be stated that poverty is complex in nature and manifesting itself in various forms with different interpretations. Its reduction and eventual eradication are a major challenge that most countries have continued to face. Zambia is not an exception to this case. This however, could be mitigated if local led development approaches were employed and if informed by evidence based research.

With more than half of the country’s population based in the rural areas, it makes sense for Zambia to deliberately cause for a vibrant rural economic development model for the future which is decentralised where local people become drivers. In the quest of enhancing local development, previous governments in Zambia have been partnering with cooperating partners like GTZ to finance Integrated Rural Development through central funding (Crehan and von Oppen, 1988). Of late, the central government has been funding local authorities using constituent development funds and equalisation of funds. Nevertheless, local economies have not improved and having heavily dependent on proceeds from copper exports agriculture (Simpasa et al., 2013). Apart from this, Zambia has been suffering from a poor business climate and unsatisfactory overall governance. It is hoped that this will improve under the New Dawn Government. The country has regrettably made little progress beyond the introduction of trade and investment liberalisation measures with little efforts to strengthen institutions and create a business-friendlyenvironment in rural areas. High finance, poor infrastructure, low human capital levels and lackof R&D capabilities are among the constraints that increase the vulnerability of the Zambian rural community. This is hampering prospects for structural transformation which would have positive impacts of people in rural areas. Data fromthe World Bank’s Doing Business project suggest that the business climate generally has been deteriorating (World Bank, 2019).

The subsistence farmer in turn has been put in a difficult position, being forced to perform with far less the function of a micro or macro enterprise, taking into consideration capital management, production organisation, market research, product development, and marketing. For Ikeleng’i, the result has often been seen as the chorus “high yield, low price, low income” for both honey and pineapple. This situation raises the concern of how to make high quality products, increase added value and generate income for smallholder farmers in the rural areas. Elsewhere, locally driven socio-economic development at the village level has been employed to mitigate rural poverty.For instance, locally driven socio-economic development at the village level based on the OVOP movementhas been documented in Asia (Fujioka, 2007; Sumodiningrat, 2014; Murayama and Kyungmi, 2014; Than et al., 2018) and in some parts of Africa (Hill et al., 2007).

The Research Problem

Ikeleng’i has an estimated population of 32,919. Its hills and abundant streams do not create a terrain that could act as a barrier to inter-regional trade and communication especially with Angola as well as Congo. Ikeleng’i is a rural area that requires a locally driven development approach. The problem necessitating this study is that Ikeleng’i rural district council has been facing the near-impossible to spur socio-economic development. The local authority has an insurmountable task of funding local infrastructure and to provide social services required to meet the basic needs of its population. This is because the local authority has been relying on top bottom led development where only the Constituency Development Funds and equalisation funds from the central government are the sources of local development financing and expected socio-economic development. These funds have been inadequate and further are tied to what the central government’sdictation as to what the use of the funds are for and in case of CDF, who the expected beneficiaries ought to be. Socio-economic development in the district at village level as such has in turn suffered from lack of infrastructure and capacity. Opportunities for revenue generation at district level in form of local taxes have often been restricted by reliance on traditional technology at village level which mainly produces unfinished products.

The search for the best locally led development alternatives to promote local economic development have been a significant task and have been attempted in projects funded by several donors for many years. These include multilaterals such as the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) (AfDB and IFAD, 2008), the Africa Development Bank (AfDB); the European Union (EU)(Brinkerhoff, 1981; Fenichel and Smith, 1992; Mukalula, 2004; Chunga et al., ud), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2009), the UN Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) (Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, 2007) and the World Bank(World Bank, 2000; 2002). Very little seems to be happening in the area of decentralisation to enhance rural development and there appears to be no socio-economic development model for the lag in development (Resnick et al., 2019). The Central Government has been urging local authorities to diversify and innovate without a national model. There has been very little movement in this area from both the local authorities and the Central Government for 58 years since independence. If Ikeleng’i  rural council does not make use of the potential contribution from local people  and endogenous products, using context specific locally led development approaches while partnering with development agencies, and private firms, very little would be achieved in bringing about socio economic development in district and hence this paper.

This aim of this paper is to create awareness and stimulate the adoption of transformative approaches to the mind-set of development actors with a view to abandon the current development practices which take a top to bottom approach. This calls for adopting a pragmatic thinking approach and giving value to evidence based developmental research. There is merit for a change in the top to bottom approach in favour of the bottom up approach. There is some justification in this. Moving away from the integrated rural development approach from the 1990s, donor strategy for agriculture especially in Africa was increasingly subsumed within a broader rural focus, which diminished the importance of the agricultural sector. Donor support for agriculture has been “sprinkled” across various agricultural activities such as research, extension, credit, seeds, and policy reforms in rural space, but with little recognition of the potential synergy among them and the need for integration even among agricultural subsectors to effectively contribute to agricultural development. Funding for rural development in general has now moved into a phase of community-driven development with emphasis on participation and empowerment and systems to diversify rural livelihood opportunities.

This paper is a product of the main PhD thesis and its focus is on a model of a rural district called Ikeleng’i. It is about how local agrarian products could be at the centre of locally led development and what approach could be applied to achieve this form of development. In this paper, we show this model by using methodological pragmatism. The model mirrors in part the Japanese One Village One Product (OVOP) movement.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Challenges of the Top to Bottom led Development

In innovating organisationally to create new development tools, the challenges in the past have been on the reliance of the top to bottom development approach which has not yielded significant results (Fenichel and Smith, 1992; Mukalula, 2004;Baah-Dwomoh, 2016). The theoretical underpinningof socio-economic development in many industrialised as well less industrialised countries have traditionally been driven by a top-down approach where the central government uses power to create growth centres around a few large cities. The priority has been given to urban and industrial capital-intensive development. In the context of the contemporary approach of the regional development theory, the top-down model has become less effective as most peripheries depend largely on the local conditions, including regional policy assistance, physical infrastructure, structure of the labour market, social qualifications and population density (Hansen, 1990; 1992).

However, elsewhere, there have been attempts to move away from top to bottom approaches. There have preferences to employ locally led community development models and we discuss two of such models.The first one is “One-Village- One-Product” (OVOP) and the second are modifications of OVOP.

OVOP Theoretical Perspective and Origin

The theoretical Basis for the OVOP concept is such that it is focussed on motivating rural development. This development is through community-basedmovements and does this by utilizing local resources and endogenous knowledge. This strategy in essence could be regarded asbeing “endogenous”, instead of “exogenous” (Natsuda et al., 2012). This approach is based on the argument “The key to the sustainable development of rural regions lies inthe development of an independent perspective and the discovery of indigenous potential” (Ray, 2001; Natsuda et al., 2012; Cloke et al., 2006).

Endogenous development denotes a progress of local social mobilization and involves a structuralorganization that carries on diverse municipal concerns to follow approved goals. This includes a locally approvedplanned procedure and an approved allocation of resources with the certain target. The main idea is that of building localcapacity with regard to developing skills and competencies. In endogenous development there is local control over the development process. The development options are locally decided and growth welfares are retainedwithin a locality (Stimson et al., 2011;Kis, 2012).Unlike exogenous approach that emphases the function of central government and foreigncompanies, investment, thoughts and new knowledge to transform the resident economy, endogenousmovement instead takes into account the responsibility and ability of local businesses and residents. This is done cooperativelywith control locally (Vázquez-Barquero, 2003; Dinis, 2006). Endogenous development isfounded on the exploitation oflocal resourcesto transformation, and increase production at a communitylevel (Garofoli, 1992; Shucksmith, 2000).

Of late, this model of local development has developed further to contain additional cultural,environmental, societal, and human components (Terluin, 2003).There have been of late a number of endogenous rural development models that have been commonly applied in countless countries, namely the European Union’s LEADER Initiative in 1990 or the LEADER in theUK. These have been applied in an effort to create rural development at the “grass-roots” level (Shucksmith, 2000). However, these models do not compare favourably with the Japanese typology of OVOP.

Origin of OVOP

OVOP originated in 1979, in Oita one of the poorest Prefecturein the Kamikatsu town in Katsuura District in Tokushima, Japan. Thehistory of the Oita-Japan “One-Village-One-Product” program, from its beginning, began as a public policy initiative. A charismatic prefectural governor Mr. HiramatsuMorihiko, provided the model all theway to its current status. The OVOP model was initiated by generating local community spirit to improve householdwelfare and local economy, through creating unique products that have high added value,producing goods and services using local resources, and improving competitiveness both innational and global markets. This spirit is realized by creating social and economic network inthe society to form local vision through local business unit developments that could optimizelocal potential resources(Hiramatsu, 2008).

The OVOP model is a collaborativeeffort of private enterprises with minimaldependence on government resources ordirection. What led to the development of the model was that it was difficult for people in villages who were relying on farming or primary industry at the timeto make a living and it was inevitable that young people in rural areas were to remain in impoverished villages. Younger people then immigrated to big cities looking for better employment and opportunities. For that reason, local residents in several rural areas in Oita prefecture, initiated community revitalisation activities that reviewed local resources and added new values and differentiation to the products to proceed with their promotion and sale.The OVOP idea was to create competitive endogenous products by relying on improved indigenous knowledgeby way of innovating equipment, building capacity in the human resource, improving value chains and marketing(Claymone, 2011).

OVOP development aims to improve the added values of the local product/services andresources in order to improve the welfare of the local community. Therefore, creativity,productivity and togetherness of community member are of most important for OVOPdevelopmentOita OVOP program has been replicated in many Asian countries including Africa and Latin America as an alternative economic development path (Chidumu, 2007;  Li and Schumann, 2013; Nyamu et al., 2018).

The second one relates to variations from the original Oita OVOP. The deviations are seen in Ghana, Senegal, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and Thailand among others. We shall examine a few of these deviations.

Thailand made modifications where the true philosophy and approach of the OVOP project follows the top down approach (Kurokawa, 2008).In Thailand, OVOP is called OneTambon One Product (OTOP), with tambon referring to the basic administrative unit in Thailand. Although the tambon is not a village, the aims of OTOP are similar to Japan’s OVOP. However, one clear distinction between Thailand’s OTOP and Japan’s OVOP is that OTOP uses a top-down approach with guidance from the central government and it ignores reliance on local community networks(Fujioka 2006).

Taiwan uses the term One Town One Product(OTOP) (Natsuda et al., 2011). OTOP, the OVOP counterpart in Tawan is designed to help LocalCultural Industries to Create Value (2008–2012), which has the “One Town, One Product”(OTOP) concept as its goal. The use of “Taiwan OTOP” as a joint products branding thatembody a high quality image for Taiwan’s local specialty industries is aiming to promote bothdomestic and export sales and stimulate the development of local tourist industries. Based on themunicipal units of township and city, products that are historic, cultural, or unique in the localcommunities are deemed as the local specialty products; therefore, the scope covered is broadand diversified – processed foods, living crafts, creative living products, rural leisure, creativegourmet, and festival events. The “Taiwan OTOP” program helps communities to determinetheir local specialty products (Nguyen, 2019).

Malaysia uses the term One District OneProduct(ODOP) (Abdul et al, 2009; Radiah et al., 2009).Under ODOP program, each selected district is being identified its potential resources andpotential distinct product that can be developed or refined, improved the value, established ownbrand and be promoted for local and international markets(Kamarudin, 2018). Among local products that havebeen promoted under ODOP program including handcraft, food and beverage, sewn andlivestock. In 2002, the ODOP policy was extended to One Village One Industry(OVOI) with reference to the case of One Tambun One Product (OTOP) in Thailand. In 2003, OVOI was transformed into One District One Industry (ODOI) and themovement has been maintained ever since.

In Indonesia,Meirina(2013) distinguishes the Oita OVOP program with aprogram based on it in Purwakarta,Indonesia. The program has also opted to use the top-down approach. Based on President Instruction No.6/2007,the OVOP initiative is carried out by the centralgovernment. Instruction No.6/2007, is a regulation policy toaccelerate SME by OVOP approach.Inaddition, to provide a firm-based law tosupport that the OVOP movement couldbe inline with industrial national policy, thecentral government enacted the PresidentRegulation No. 28 years 2008. It mentionsthat OVOP is a part of creative industry.

What is common in all these modifications of Oita OVOP is the Japanese prototype (the Oita OVOP program)is the application of the bottom-up effort, while the manyattempts to implement OVOP programsoutside of Japan arebasically top-down schemes led by thecentral governments.

RESEARCH DESIGN, MATERIALS AND METHODS

We employed a tri-phased complex mixed methods pragmatic case study design. The design could be conceptualised as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Schema of the complex mixed methods design

This was a case study of rural district. We opted to employ this research strategy because it focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings. Eisenhardt (1989) and Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) note that case studies combine data collection methods such as archives, interviews, questionnaires and observations. Such a research strategy slows for novelty, testability and empirical validity which arise from the close linkage with empirical evidence. The details of this schema are shown in the research design matrix in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Research design matrix

Methodological pragmatism in the study was the overriding philosophy that we employed. As a variant of pluralistic approaches, we preferred to apply methodological pragmatism because we wanted to orient our project towards what works (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011) locally (Cronen, 2001) and in the service of action (Argyris et al (1985).

Our preferred use of methodological pragmatism gave us the liberty to choose methods and research strategies that- we could tailor to meet what we wanted to especially work best and achieve the purpose of the study (Creswell, 2007; Balikie, 2010; Feilzer, 2010). We conceptualised a sequential mixed methods design since we desired apply the methods and the findings from one phase to inform or shape the use of other methods in the subsequent phase (see Plano Clark and Ivankova, 2016: 86). At the heart of this design was community involvement. This is due to the fact that we needed to embrace the shifts from a centralised approach to rural development towards locally led socio-economic development while we understood local culture and to understand heritages in communities of interest (see Loulansky, 2006).

In this methodological pragmatic approach, we had placed special emphasis on the role of the local community, since we believed that it was absolutely imperative for them to drive the study especially in Phase I and III. We viewed the local community as the main driver, stakeholder and benefactor in the entire process. We believed that the local community would have to embark on the journey of sustainable orientated locally led socio-economic development. We have contractedthe three passed methodology. We use the research design matrix instead since the methodology was rather long.

FINDINGS

The fieldwork was conducted in all the wards in Ikeleng’i in Zambia, for 10 months starting February 2022 to November 2022. We collected basicdata through participatory transect walks (observations, meetings, interviews and focus group discussions) a survey questionnaire and a future search conference witha wide range of participants.

Socio-economic characteristics of respondents

The data for this paper was drawn from the following units of analysis in the three phases.

Table 1: Sample profile

Source: Field Survey, 2022

In this section, we use the survey questionnaire to profile Socio-economic characteristics of respondents. The data was drawn from primary commodity producers (e.g. cassava growers, pineapple growers, bee keepers, and handcrafters). Our respondents stated that residents in the study Ikeleng’i perform various economic activities to make a living. People need cash not only to cope with food deficits, but also to buy everyday commodities and clothes and to pay school fees. The dominant means of livelihood in Ikeleng’i were mainly agrarian activities. The detailed breakdown is as follows. Over two thirds of the villagers n = 113 (68.1%) are involved in pineapple farming only. The rest and less than a third n = 53 (32.9%) combined means of livelihood that included bee keeping and pineapple farming (n = 31 (18.7%), bee keeping and handicraft n = 12 (7.2%) and pineapple farming and handicraft n = 10 (6%) (See Table 2).

Table 2: Distribution of means of livelihood

Source: Field Survey, 2022

From this table, we see that nearly all villagers n = (154 (92.7%) grow pineapples. Duo farming tends to be adopted as one way to increase their total annual household income than the dependency one pineapple only. Mr Sakuwaha had this to say in this regard.

I am into pineapple and bee keeping. It is not possible to survive by depending on one of these. I have in a year an income of ZMK 6 000 from honey. This is not enough. From pineapples, I get about ZMK 8,000. From honey I get ZMK for every 20 litres and ZMK 10 from 10 to 15 pineapples. I just have to use more than one source you know…

From the possible means of livelihood, especially what people of Ikeleng’i considered to be an importantsource of livelihood in their communities, respondents, we asked them to assign a total of 11 points. They were to use an eleven point Likert scale. A score of 1 meant not important and 11 meant very important. The value 6 was the median in terms of importance. The value 6 was an important metric to calculate because it gave us an idea of where the “centre” of a dataset was located. We used it as an effective value to compare two poles of sets of data (values lower than 6 were on the negative side in terms of importance and values above 6 were on the positive side of importance.From table 4.4, the scores that were above the median included pineapple (9), honey (8) and wood (7).

Table 4.4: Important source of livelihood

Source: Field Survey, 2022

Indigenous Agrarian Production Systems                         

The data presented in this section was from transect walks, interviews, focus group discussions and meetings that were held. Further than this, we made farmvisits in order to appreciate what was on the ground and to further triangulate statements. This gave us a better picture about the status of their production system.

The survey tool provided a broad picture on a wide range of themes and sub themesabout the farming system and crop management practices. The farming system and crop management practices in Ikeleng’i are traditional in nature. These subsistence farmersgrow vegetables, maize, pineapples, cassava, sweet potato, beans and collect honey. They practice more of mono-cropping in their cassava, millet and pineapple fields. Crop rotation is hardly practiced. Integrated Pest Management Techniques (IPM)as an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties are sparingly used. The main crop pests were millipedes. Households in Ikeleng’iare not into vegetables and maize farming. They are very much in pineapple and cassava. The people of Ikeleng’iare threatened by millipedes, moles and rats and fall armyworms (Table 3).

Table 3: Farming system and crop management practices

Source: Field Survey, 2022

Farming is done manually from ploughing to harvesting. Weeding of pineapple fields for instance is difficult and because it is expensive and most of the fields are huge. Planting and weeding are done by the household and this tends to mitigate the cost of labour. Table 4 shows that the livelihoods are predominantly agrarian in nature. A small proportion of the population has diversified into non-farm activities like trading, wage labour, hawking and motor bike transport.Apart from the above agrarian means of livelihoods, people of Ikeleng’i were also involved in Non-Agrarian activities. However, the non-agrarian activities are rather less significant as shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Profile of Non-Agrarian activities (Diversification) 

Source: Field Survey, 2022

Relating to the two categories of livelihoods which are shown in Tables 4and 5 respondents posited that the livelihoods were not sustainable. Agrarian activities were qualified as unsustainable whereas non-agrarian activities including trading , wage labour , hawking and motor bike transportation were qualified as very unsustainable.

Model for Local Development in Ikeleng’i

We desired to construct an ideal model that could be used by people of Ikeleng’i to develop a sustainable and integrated rural economy. The model was built on the third day of the future search conference. Before delving into the model, we now desire to provide a description of the position of the type of model we have taken in this paper. This has been done because there have been different types of models that are discussed in science and these include: scale models, analogue models, mathematical models (van Fraassen, 1980; Da Costa and French, 2003), and theoretical models (Giere, 1988; Psillos, 2011)inter alias.

In this paper, we are employing the term model as in form of a structural relationships to provide descriptions and processes for phenomena that relate to resolving the socio-economic under development problems of Ikeleng’i district. The model in essence is descriptive.A descriptive model shows logical relationships, such as the system’s whole or part of relationships, the interconnection between its parts, and the functions its components perform. Typical descriptive models like the one presented in this section includes parts or phenomena that describe the functional or physical architecture of Ikeleng’i s production system. The model is postulated later on in form of a diagram. This model will descriptively show elements of Ikeleng’i production development system and will be postulated later on in form of a diagram (De Coning and Cloete, 2006; Cloete et al., 2018). Such a diagram will act as “a representation of a more complex reality that has been oversimplified in order to describe the relationship among phenomena, and how change ought to happen”.

We present aspects of the future search conference which are linked to the development of an ideal model for Ikeleng’i local authority. This is a model that depicts how the sources of livelihood could be exploited to lead to a sustainable and integrated rural economy for the people and by the people. The model that is presented in this section was developed by the people who are affected. It is about the people who are affected and it is for the people who are affected. The model stems from a set of hypotheses based on the field work. The set of hypotheses are that;

1. Ikeleng’i community’s state of income is low.
2. The community in Ikeleng’i is endowed with human, natural and social capital that could be exploited for their betterment.
3. The community in Ikeleng’i is riddled with a poor state of physical and financial capital.

Based on these assumptions, the conference opted to rank the product lines first so that they could identify what product ought to be considered as key. The product was to be taken as the thrust for the interventions at village level. This was believed to be critical before looking at what could be the potential interventions to be considered or done to enhance people’s livelihoods as well as spur social economic development using the bottom up approach. The future search conference in the plenary session was as such faced with the dilemma of ranking the following eight sources of livelihoods in terms of what to consider as the ideal products to focus on in terms of comparisons and for what reasons the product was to be selected.

1. Cassava,
2. Bee keeping,
3. Animal husbandry;
4. Handicraft (basket, chairs, stools and table weaving),
5. Pineapple,
6. Trading , wage labour ,
7. Hawking and
8. Motor bike transportation

Since decisions in a group are rarely made by a single person, the decision in the future conference was the product of an interaction between one individual’s preferences and those of otherswhen looking at multi criteria decisions (Vanderpooten, 1996; Garg et al., 2017; Zlaugotne et al., 2020). Through the process of debating that is giving and taking, a matrix was agreed upon as a way to make decisions on what was important and not important.Hierarchies of product lines were drawn and debated for exploitation in the quest of development.

The first to be assessed was what product could be selected for the improvement living conditions. Participants debated the primary products and what could be secondary or additional products to improve income and eventual livelihoods. Participants discussed openly and assigned points in groups from the least to maximum points. They did this by determining domains which were to be scored as they deemed fit. The domains and the decision points for each product were as follows:

1. Income size (expected score was 11 and the un expected was 1),
2. The Cost of doing business (expected score was 1 and the un excepted score was7),
3. Population involved in production (expected score was 511 and the un expected was 1) and
4. Importance to livelihood community (expected score was 9 and the un expected was 1).

In the future search conference, the relative priorities (weights) were computed for each comparator across the domains during the plenary. For this task, the future search conference was invited to arrange using the scores or points in a hierarchy all the products. The first level of discussion was in four groups. The groups were according to the four chiefdoms in Ikeleng’i. In order to confer intergroup agreement, the four groups later discussed the hierarchies in plenary session. Pineapples were ranked number 1 and hawking was ranked number 8 (See Table 5).

Table 5: MCDA Decision Table

Source: Field Survey, 2022

It is evident from the scores that pineapple is the main source of income and a livelihood of most of the people in the villages in Ikeleng’i. The people considered pineapples as the driver of local development and a product that could improve their livelihoods. This was followed by honey. The conference settled for the two products. The essence of selecting these products is for value addition with a view to generate higher incomes for local communities, as well as in transforming Ikeleng’í’s environment to make it attractive to local residents. In essence the products and partnerships are deemed to be appropriate for a sense of being empowered to make wider, or clearer, choices.

It can be deciphered that rural livelihoods in Ikeleng’i constitute a complex livelihood structure that emphasises that enhances trading, wage labour and hawking. The livelihoods are predominantly agrarian in nature, with a small part of the population diversifying into non-farm activities like trading, wage labour, hawking and motor bike transport.Table 6 is a framework that identifies ten sources of income which people can build up and/ordraw upon and these are:

Table 6: Comprehensive Sources of Livelihood

Source: Field Survey, 2022

These sources constitutelivelihood building blocks. Thus, the villagers may draw on social capital such as family or neighbourhood securitymechanisms at times when financial capital is in short supply. Within the Ikeleng’icontext, people are likely to pursue multiple sources and outcomes. Outcomes will not be simply monetary, nor eventangible in all cases. They may include, for instance, a sense of being empowered tomake wider, or clearer, choices (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Model for a sense of being empowered to make wider, or clearer, choices

The core concepts in the model include sources of livelihood (Agrarian and non-agrarian) which are not sustainable. However, both require specific Interventions that ought to be cleaved in partnership with cooperating partners, Ikeleng’i Local authority and the community. These interventions have a people focus at the micro or community level (where it may already be well embedded). These interventions involve people and support them in achieving their own livelihood goals. It is hoped that the interaction between the interventions, the actors and the sources of livelihood will yield Self-Reliant households based on sustainable livelihoods. The outcome will be increased income that will create a sense of being empowered to make wider, or clearer, choices as shown in Figure 2 above.The schema of the model above is intended to depict reality in Ikeleng’i only. It is, rather, intended as an analytical structure for coming to grips with the complexity of livelihoods, understanding influences on poverty and identifying where interventions can best be made. In this way, poverty, and the opportunities to escape from it, depend on all of the above.For Ikeleng’i to be steered into the ideal mode of development and for the livelihoods to be sustainable, specific interventions ought to be cleaved in partnership with cooperating partners, Ikeleng’i Local Authority and the community. The following excerpts provide participants’ ideas of how Ikeleng’i ought to be developed.

A Councillor emphasised the unity in the village as a potential research that could be relied upon to spur local development.

We have a village spirit of oneness…we have been working together on this road you see. We put our resources together and each time we mend our road. What more when we setup cooperatives.

Councillor 2

While there is a basic desire to make use of localresources, the current quality of human resource does not seem to have adequate knowledge to render improvements in the current farming system as stated by one traditional leader.

We have been harvesting honey for time immemorial using our home grown methods. But we need to improve them so that we have more yield and it is only possible if the government or someone came to our aid. We can improve a lot by learning from the great and when we get capital injection.  (Meaning industrialists with expertise and start-up capital).

Traditional leader 3

The ability to develop unique products which cannot be imitated,to quickly develop a new unique product if imitated, and to continue active marketing were considered to be critical. The aspect of local human resource is indispensable for villages to obtain sustainability. All that is needed is to build capacity. This was echoed by participants in this study and below is a testimony of a village headman.

So far, we have seen that we can do better in our wards and villages if we grouped ourselves and examined what we were producing much and well at village level. We can specialise as a honey or pineapple villages. We have the labour except to be trained in some techniques. We do not need to worry about labour as we have plenty of young men and women who are not in school.…we have for a long time demanded our lives to improve through market based solutions.

Village headman

In this regard, the people’s vision was in line with the thrust of One Village One Product (OVOP)towards local economic development and the value addition that has been promotedin Japan for decades. At village level, One Village One Product” (OVOP) which could be pineapple or honeyor One Village Two Products” (OVTP) which could be honey and pineapplemay be considered as a type of social movement to propel product exploitation and livelihood improvement. It is envisaged that through (OVOP and OVTP) improved income and livelihoods will yield some desired livelihood outcomes (e.g. more cash), increased well-being (e.g. non-material goods, like self-esteem, health status, access to services, sense of inclusion), reduced vulnerability (e.g. better resilience through increase in asset status), improved food security (e.g. increase in financial capital in order to buy food) and a more sustainable use of natural resources.

The participants were afraid of external stimuli like an “outsider” as these had a predetermined packaged plan since local development cannot be imported or implanted ready-made from the outside.

We have seen that when we are directed by our leaders (government) on how to use CDF, we find ourselves failing to do better. We have the belief that any development agenda to work, and for it to be sustainable, there must be a sense of ownership among those participating. We are not saying we do not need outside help No, No… This help should just to facilitate.

Traditional leader

The details of how to operationalise the model looking will be anchored in the by development actors (Box 1 and Box 3). The approach could be explained as follows. In order to have improved income and especially household income, that will create a sense of being empowered to make wider, or clearer, choices, their ought to be transforming structures and processes in place (Box 1). These development actors will be supported continually by Ikeleng’i District Authority   and supported by traditional chiefs. There has already been some buy in by the Chiefs in the four chiefdoms. The development actors will apply measures designed in (Box 2). These transforming structures will be supported by utilisation of Constituent Development Funds, Equalisation Funds as well as resources pooled in by donors (Box 3). In order for people to have improved income and a sense of being empowered to make wider, or clearer, choices, people will operate in corporatives.

Given the livelihood sources and the challenges people of Ikeleng’i are experiencing, the people recognise the importance of multiple actors at territorial Level, at local level thereby widening the range of potential partners if locally led social economic development has to be realised. The people believe that they are ready to improve themselves at village level by concentrating on one product. The people desire to produce and market atleast one or two commercial value product(s) per village through the utilization of local resources and expertise.They believe that this is only possible if there were both local and international linkages. The responsibility for this lay within the community structures (working with chiefs, headmen and forming village based cooperatives). Ikeleng’i local authority was singled out to be the link as it housed the district’s development agenda and was at the helm of making decisions regarding the utilisation Constituent Development Funds as well as Equalisation Funds and further to this, donor resources.People in village based corporatives will then be involved in sustainable exploitation of natural capital and make a living on bee keeping and pineapple farming (Box 4).

In order for the model to yield the desired socio economic development, the following were essential elements the development actors were identified as potential partners that could play a role in the development actors ought to embrace:

1. At territorial Level: (inclusion and Citizen Participation, Response. Ability and Democratizing Economic Opportunities within Ikeleng’i).
2. At local level (inclusion and participation of villagers and Ikeleng’i District Authority).
3. Human Rights based approach (To guarantee equity, active participation, of vulnerable groups and reinforce the need of accountability and transparency from the Government).
4. Gender based approach (Gender aspects to be mainstreamed throughout planning, implementation and reporting, and special focus will be given to gender empowerment and inclusiveness).

The following development actors were identified as potential partners that couldplay a role in the development process:

1. Ikeleng’i District Local Authority (As the Hub and to play an important facilitating role, especially in technical development, producer promotion, and product marketing – see Okura, 2007);
2. Ministries to support OVOP or OVTP in form of technical aid, research and development (see Fujioka, 2006; Sega and Suzuki, 2019);
3. UNIDO (As a link to development partners and could play a critical role in supporting decentralization agenda) and

International organisations in partnership with UNDP (World Bank, JICA,USAID, German Cooperation/GIZ, Spain, Italy,   Ireland, and Sweden, Switzerland) could come in for human resource development, increasing the capacity of villagers in terms of business management, marketing, leadership development, diversification, value chain enhancement and community member empowerment.A summary of the details of how the model will operate are schematically shown in Figure 3 below.

DISCUSSION

This paper was set to show case a locally oriented socio-economic model for development of villages of Ikeleng’i a rural district in Zambia. The main findings are that bee keeping and pineapple farming ought to be the focus of local development.

The study has been modelled onOita’s endogenous locally led development. The application of OVOP and or OVTP in Ikeleng’i is likely to have great potential as an alternative to the current top to bottom driven socio economic development. Since Ikeleng’ihas two superior commodities or products and when supported by development actors, it will have competitiveness and the potential to develop, meanwhile, the household based micro businesses that form the backbone of livelihoods will also develop. Through the OVOP and or OVTP framework, it will help to explore and promote local innovations and create more products based on the potential of existing resources. Bee keeping and pineapple farming are unique to the local area. The aim of developing regional superior products through the OVOP and or OVTP framework is to develop regional superior products that have local and global marketing potential, develop and improve the quality and value added of the product. The product criteria in OVOP and orOVTP areIkeleng’i’s superior products. They are unique and have the potential for domestic and global markets. One measure of the success of socio- economic development is viewed from the economic growth (Meirina et al., 2013).

The envisaged partnership with development actors will certainly increase the rate of rural socio-economic development in Ikeleng’i with subsequent positive impacts on improving the welfare of rural communities. To achieve this goal, of course, it requires synergistic participatory cooperation between the government and local communities where both parties must be able to assess the potential resources needed to design and develop regional growth. Regional economic development is a process of local government and the entire community to manage the various resources available.

In the Ikeleng’i model of OVOP and or OVTP, the exhibited togetherness element shall be the background for the formation of village based micro and macro enterprises. The existence of emotional bonds in the villages minimizes the occurrence of disputes and this is likely to maximize the already existing cooperation. In other words, the OVOP approach is an action that requires full commitment to increasing community awareness of the potential and wealth of the village. In addition, there is likelihood of increasing community income and increasing elf-confidenceas well as pride in the abilities of villages and Ikeleng’i as shown elsewhere (Igusa, 2009; Thu, 2013; Meirina et al., 2013).

There is need to render some caution. Since Zambia does not maintain a ruling party for long, the OVOP and or OVTP framework must not be driven by a Top-Down policy. Moreover, there is a weak point in development planning administration in Zambia. Development planning and administration is done by a government in power over its people. This power is based on the policy of the campaign of the political party. The goal of a political party led development is to acquire the voice in the election next time. The top to bottom approach is counted as a populist. Embracing a political party OVOP and or OVTP framework will lead to failure.

In order to ensure that OVOP and or OVTP does not fail in Ikeleng’i, there is also need to be weary of three basic reasons behind the failure of equivalent schemes elsewhere like the OTOP – One Tambon One Product in Thailand (Local Community Development Project with the name of “Back to Village Project). The notable ones are: (a) The problem of not understanding the true philosophy and approach of the OVOP (b) the problem of the top-down policy, that is assuming it to be a purely government initiative; and (c) the quality and skill sets of human resources in the area (Natsuda et al., 2011; Thu, 2013;Tripathi and Agrawal, 2021).

RECOMMENDATIONS

For the model to be successful, there is need to critically consider adaptation of OVOP and or OVTP approach as a village model by minimising central government dictation on what ought to be done. Instead development actors and cooperating partners should focus on community empowerment. Three main principles from the Japanese OVOP and or OVTP approach would be worth considering (see Hiramatsu, 2005; 2008), these are:

• Focusing on producing first for the local community and then the global community. The development of OVOP and or OVTP approach aims to increase, develop, and promote one product that local people can be proud of, especially a product that can be marketed both domestically and internationally. This means that the product of goods and services that can reflect local touch and pride, but at the same time could meet global demand.
• Self-Reliance and Creativity. The driving force of OVOP and or OVTP approach is the local people’s initiatives.The local community ought to use its own potential and local wisdomto be able to identify its competitive advantage in order to produce a creative product independently by using its own available resources.
• Human Resource Development. A visionary local leadership and community empowerment are crucial for OVOP and or OVTP approach. Therefore, it would be important to create and empower local leaders (traditional leaders and local authority staff. These could motivate and encourage the local community to cultivate its potentials and creative thinking. This also includes establishing networks and the transfer of knowledge and skills.

CONCLUSION

From the results of the discussion, a number conclusions can be drawn as follows:The identification of local potential in each village would make it easy to identify the superior product advantagesof each village. We envisage the role of local government and cooperating partners, in the village to direct, guide andfoster local communities so that they have the skills to cultivate their local potential. We are of opinion that the outstanding success of village economic revitalization programme of OVOP implemented especially in Oita Prefecture Uttar Pradesh has set an example to set the proposed model for Ikeleng’I since the OVOP philosophy has shown encouraging results. Given the positive results and impact of the concept of OVOP, it will be of immense benefit for economic revitalization and inclusive development of Ikeleng’i which has been riddled with income inequality, increasing pressure of rural-urban migration and lack of employment opportunities. The proposed model as enunciated in this paper calls for one or two competitive marketable products at village level. The products could lead to increased sales revenue. This is likely to create income for the villagers and enhance the local economy as shown elsewhere (Savitri, 2008;Stenning and Koichi, 2008; Triharin et al., 2014).

The OVTP development needs in Ikeleng’i ought to be coordinated using a co-operative approach. The paper’s call to action therefore is to change the mind-set of development actors not only at the district level in Ikeleng’i but also at the central level. This calls for adopting a pragmatic thinking approach and giving value to evidence based developmental research that takes a transformative community led developmental approach. This proposed model could lead to the development of micro and macro industries in the villages and establish cooperatives in Ikeleng’idistrict’s economy. The success of implementing One Village Two Products” (OVTP) could be transferred to other districts once successful.

ETHICS STATEMENT

The studies involving human participants were reviewed andapproved by University of Zambia Humanities and SocialSciences Research Ethics Committee (IRB Approval – HSSREC No. 2022 May -027.

Author Contributions

The authors conceived the study with inputs from staff of the Graduate School of Business.

Funding

The authors declare that this study was done using personal funds.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conductedin the absence of any commercial or financial relationships thatcould be construed as a potential conflict of interest.This research article contains our original work, has not received prior publication,and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The authors haveseen and approved the manuscript being submitted. The views expressed arepersonal. The authors are solely responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

REFERENCES

1. Abdul K., R.,  Mohd R., Mohamad, B., and Ab. Ibrahim., A.H.C., (2009). Success Factors for Small Rural Entrepreneurs under the One District-One-Industry Programme in Malaysia.Contemporary Management Research. 5 (2): 147-162.
2. Ab. Azid Hj. Che Ibrahim (2009), Success Factors for Small Rural Entrepreneurs under the OneDistrict-One-Industry Programme in Malaysia Contemporary Management Research. 5  (2147).162.
3. AfDB & IFAD (2008): The changing context and prospects for agricultural and rural development in Africa. A working paper from the joint evaluation of AfDB and IFAD policies and operations in agriculture and rural development in Africa.
4. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., and McLain Smith, D (1985). Action Science, Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5. Baah-Dwomoh, J.K. (2016). BACKGROUND PAPER FOR. African Transformation Report 2016: Transforming Africa’s Agriculture. Joint research between African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET) and Japan International Cooperation Agency Research institute (JICA-RI). Available https://www.jica.go.jp/jica-ri/publication/booksandreports/l75nbg0000004aet-att/l75nbg0000004ait.pdf.
6. Bessière, J. (1998).Local development and heritage: traditional food and cuisine as tourist attractions in rural areas. Sociol. Rural. 38, 21–34.
7. Blaikie, W.H. N. (2010). Designing social research: the logic of anticipation. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity.
8. Brinkerhoff D. W (1981). The Effectiveness of Integrated Rural Development: A Synthesis of Research and Experience. USAID.
9. Chidumu, J.I. (2007). The impact of “One village One Product (OVOP) on Household Income–Implications on Food Security: The Case of Bvumbwe Operation Area, Thyolo District, Malawi. PhD Thesis, Egerton University, Nakuru, Kenya. Unpublished.
10. Chunga, B.M., Chitembo, A., Lungu, N., Colenbrander, W., Ng’ambia,C., Mbunju, M., and Sinkala, T. (2005). Ex-post Evaluation – sustainability of Regional Rural Development programmes (RRD). Country Case Study – “Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP). North Western Province, Zambia” BMZ. Evaluation Reports 005.
11. Claymone, Y. (2011). A Study on One Village One Product (OVOP) in Japan and Thailand as an Alternative of Community Development in Indonesia: A Perspective on Japan and Thailand. The International Journal of East Asian Studies, 01/2011. Available online at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yoopin_Claymone/publication/255801823_A_Study_on_One_village_One_Product_ Project_(OVOP)_in_Japan_and_Thailand_as_an_Alternative_of_Community_Development_in_Indonesia_A_Perspective _on_Japan_and _Thailand/links/00b49520b603a01e51000000
12. Cloete, F., De Coning, C., Wissink, H. (2018) Improving public policy: Theory, practice and results. Van Schaik Publishers.
13. Cloete, F., Wissink, H. & De Coning, C. (2006). Improving public policy: From theory to practice. (2nd ed.). Pretoria: Van Schaik.
14. Cloke, P.; Marsden, T.; Mooney, P. (2006). Handbook of Rural Studies; Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
15. Crehan, K., Von Oppen, A. (1988). Understandings of ‘Development’: An Arena of Struggle: The story of a development project in Zambia. Sociogia Ruralis. Volume28, (2-3): 113-145.
16. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage Publications.
17. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage Publications.
18. Cronen V (2001) Practical theory, practical art, and the pragmatic-systemic account of inquiry, Communication theory. 11 (1): 14-35.
19. da Costa, N. and S. French (2000). Models, Theories, and Structures: Thirty Years on. Philosophy of Science 67, S116–S127.
20. Dinis, A. (2006). Marketing and innovation: Useful tools for competitiveness in rural and peripheral areas. Eur. Plan. Stud. 14:  9–22.
21. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. The Acad. Mang. Rev. 14(4): 532- 550.
22. Eisenhardt KM and Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad. Mang. J. 50(1): 25-32
23. FAO (2009): Agriculture for Development – Toward a new paradigm and guidelines for success: PPT presented at Forum on How to Feed the World in 2050, FAO. Rome October 2009.
24. Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1): 6–16.
25. Fenichel, A., and Smith, B. (1992). A successful failure: Integrated rural development in Zambia.  World Development. 20 (9): 1313-1323.
26. Fujioka, R. (2006). Tai no OTOP purojekuto: Kusanoneseisaku no hikari to kage [Thai OTOP project: Lights and shadow of grassroots development policy]. In Isson ippin undou to kaihatsutojoukoku: Nihon no chiikisinkou wa doutsutaeraretaka [OVOP and developing countries], Chapter 6. Tokyo: Institute of Developing Economies-Japan External Trade Organization.
27. Fujioka, R. (2007). OVOP Movement Strategy, presentation at the National Conference on “One Village, One Product” Movement in Cambodia, Phnom Penh 5-6 June 2007.
28. Gannon, A. (2004).Rural tourism as a factor in rural community economic development for economies 1. Hayward, C.; Simpson, L.; Wood, L. Still left out in the cold: problematising participatory research and development. Sociol. Rural. 44: 95–108.
29. Garg R., Jain D. (2017). Fuzzy multi-attribute decision making evaluation of e-learning websites using FAHP, COPRAS, VIKOR, WDBA. Decision Science Letters. (4):351–364.
30. Garofoli, G. (1992). Endogenous Development and Southern Europe; Avebury: Marlborough, UK.
31. Giere, R. (1988). Explaining Science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32. Global Donor Platform for Rural Development (2007). Formulating and Implementing Sector-wide Approaches in Agriculture and Rural Development: A Synthesis Report. November 2007.
33. Hansen, N. (1990), Innovative regional milieux, small firms and regional development: evidence from Mediterranean France, The Annals of Regional Science. 24 (2): 107-23.
34. Hansen, N. (1992), Competition, trust and reciprocity in the development of innovative regional milieux, The Journal of the RSAI. 71 (2): 95-105.
35. Hill, T. R., E. L. Nel and P. Illgner. (2007). Partnership for Success – Community-Based Economic Development: A Case Study of Ngolowindo Cooperative, Malawi. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy: 25:  573-590.
36. Hiramatsu, M. (2005). For the regional leaders of 21st century. Toyo Keizai Shinpo Co., Ltd. P91-93 ISBN-4-492-21151-9 (Written in Japanese)
37. Hiramatsu, M., (2008). One Village, One Product Spreading throughout the World. Oita OVOP International Exchange Promotion Committee, Japan
38. Igusa, K. (2009). Local Development and OVOP Movement in Oita, Japan: How Oita challenged to form a new concept of local development. Rural Research and Planning Group International Meeting, 4^th October 2010. UTM Skudai, Malaysia.
39. Kamarudin, K.H. (2018). One Village One Product (OVOP) Plan for B40 Towards Inclusive and Sustainable Rural Development. UTM Razak School of Engineering and Advanced Technology
40. Kis, K. (2012). The experiences of implementing LEADER approach, with special attention to effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. Studia Univ. Babes-Bolyai : 57, 34.
41. Kurokawa K. (2009). Effectiveness and limitations of the “One Village One Product” (OVOP) approach as a government-led development policy: Evidence from Thai “One Tambon One Product” (OTOP). Studies in Regional Science. 39: 977-989.
42. Kurokawa, K., Tembo, F., te Velde, D.W. (2010). Challenges for the OVOP movement in Sub-Saharan Africa. -Insights from Malawi, Japan and Thailand April 2010. JICA and ODA.
43. Li, N.; Schumann, F.R. (2013). The One Village One Product (OVOP) Model and Economic Development on Guam. J. Econ. Econ. Educ. Res. 14, 21.
44. Loulanski, T., (2006). Cultural Heritage in Socio-Economic Development: Local and Global Perspectives. Environments 34(2). Waterloo, Canada.
45. Meirina, T.,  Dwinita, L., and Raden, S. (2013). ‘One Village One Product (Ovop) Approach To Develop A Region’s Craft Product Potential.pdf’. KURA, (Human and socio-environmental studies), p. 26: 1-25. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2297/35751.
46. Meirina, T., et al. (2014) Pendekatan One Village One Product (OVOP) untuk Mengembangkan Potensi Kerajinan Daerah. Studi Kasus: Kerajinan Gerabah di Kecamatan Plered, Kabupaten Purwakarta. Journal of Visual Art and Design.Institut Teknologi Bandung, vol 6 no 1.
47. Mukalula (2004) Poverty Alleviation through construction industry: The case of Zambia’s rural areas. Second LACCEI Conference, Miami, Florida.
48. Murayama, H., and Kyungmi, S. (2014) Understanding the OVOP movement in Japan an evaluating of regional one product activities for future world expansion of the OVOP/OTOP policy. International OVOP Policy Association IOPA website: www.iovoppa.org.
49. Natsuda, K., Igusa, K, Wiboongpongse, A., Cheamuangphan, A., Shingkharat, S., & Thoburn, J. (2011). One Village One Product – Rural Development Strategy in Asia: The Case of OTOP in Thailand. RCAPS Working Paper No. 11-3, August 2011, Ritsumeikan Center for Asia Pacific Studies (RCAPS), Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University.
50. Natsuda, K.; Igusa, K.; Wiboonpongse, A.; Thoburn, J. (2012). One Village One Product—Rural development strategy in Asia: the case of OTOP in Thailand. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 33: 369–385.
51. Nguyen T.H.N. (2019). Studying on the SMES supporting policies of Taiwan’s government under the go south policy Past, Present and Implications for VietnamResearch Report Submitted to Taiwan Fellowship Program 2019 Ministry Of Foreign Affairs Republic Of China (Taiwan). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net › scientific-contributions ›
52. Nyamu, G.; Wagah, G.; Obala, L. (2018). The role of productive processes on the implementation of differential advantage approach in Kenya OVOP projects. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 11: 95–101.
53. Okura, Y. (2007). OVOP to burando senryaku [Regional development and OVOP: Implications from the brand image survey in Oita, Japan]. Business Review of Kansai University 51 (6).
54. Plano Clark, V. L. and Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed methods research. A guide to the field. Sage Publications.
55. Poverty Analysis Zambia (2018). Embassy of Sweden. Available online from https://cdn.sida.se/app/uploads/2021/08/24151354/Multidimensional-Poverty-Analysis-Zambia-2018.pdf.
56. Psillos, S. (2011). Living with the abstract: realism and models. Synthese 180 (1), 3–17.
57. Radiah A.  K. R., Mohamad, M. R. and Che Ibrahim, A. A. (2009). Success Factors for Small Rural Entrepreneurs under the OneDistrict-One-Industry Programme in Malaysia, Contemporary Management Research. 5 (2): 147-162.
58. Ray, C. (2001). Transnational co-operation between rural areas: elements of a political economy of EU rural development. Sociol. Rural. 41: 279–295.
59. Resnick, D., Siame, G., Mulambia, P., Ndhlovu, D., Shicilenge, B., Sivasubramanian, B. (2019). Deepening decentralization in Zambia: Political economy constraints and opportunities for reform. IFPRI Discussion paper 1893. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.1335325.
60. Roy, B., and Vanderpooten, D. (1996). The European school of MCDA: Emergence, basic features and current works. J of MCDA. 5 (1): 22-38.
61. Savitri, D. (2008). An approach of Sustainable development: Rural Revitalization as the Pioneer of OVOP movement. J. OVOP Policy. 1: 79–88.
62. Shucksmith, M. (2000). Endogenous development, social capital and social inclusion: Perspectives from LEADER in the UK. Sociol. Rural. 40: 208–218.
63. Simpasa, A., Hailu, D., Levine, S., Tibana, R.J. (2013). Capturing Mineral Revenues in Zambia: Past Trends and Future Prospects. UNDP. New York, NY 10017, USA.
64. Stenning, N.; Koichi, M. (2008). Knowledge and networking strategies for community capacity development in Oyama-machi: An archetype of the OVOP movement. J. OVOP Policy.1: 5–20.
65. Stimson, R.J.; Stough, R, Nijkamp, P. (2011). Endogenous Regional Development: Perspectives, Measurement and Empirical
66. Sumodiningrat, C., Maulida, A., Tendenan, V.S.M; Marlius, A., Guna, .A.C. (2014). Improvement Rural Living Condition Through One Village One Product (OVOP) Movement. Report by ASEAN Project Team. Available from https://asean.org › wp-content.
67. Terluin, I.J. (2003). Differences in economic development in rural regions of advanced countries: an overview and critical analysis of theories. J. Rural Stud. 19, 327–344.
68. Thanh, L.H., Nhat, L.T., Dang, H.N., Ho, T.M.H., Lebailly, P. (2018). One Village One Product (OVOP)—A Rural Development Strategy and the Early Adaption in Vietnam, the Case of Quang Ninh Province. Sustainability. 10(12): 4485; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124485.
69. Thu, N.T.A. (2013). “One Village One Product (OVOP) in Japan to One Tambon One Product OTOP) in Thailand: Lessons for Grass Root Development in Developing Countries.” Journal of Social and Development Sciences. 4 (12): 529-537.
70. Tripathi, A.P. and Agrawal, N. (2021). Impact of an economic revitalization programme on export and employment generation: a case study of One District One Product Programme in Uttar Pradesh, India. Public Administration and Policy: An Asia-Pacific Journal. 24 (3): 306-319.
71. UN Data (2023). https://www.google.com/search?q=UN+Datazambia+population&oq
72. van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
73. Vázquez-Barquero, A. (2003). Endogenous Development: Networking, Innovation, Institutions and Cities; Routledge: Abingdon, UK.
74. World Bank (2000). Rural Development: From Vision to Action? Phase II.Report No. 20628.
75. World Bank (2002). Reaching the Rural Poor: A Renewed Strategy for Rural Development – A Summary. Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) Department.
76. Zlaugotne, B., Zihare, L., Balode, L., Kalnbalkite, A., Khabdullin, A., Blumberga, D. (2020). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods Comparison. Environmental and Climate Technologies. 24 (1): 454–471.