The traditional approach to forestry development that has been pursued since the 1960s is tinged with liberal or so-called neoclassical economic thought. Under this approach, project validity is assessed on the basis of profit and cost-benefit analysis. The justification for choice of strategy and actions selected is based on a macroeconomic conception in which profitability has priority. This approach is eminently "top-down": the sectoral strategies orienting development programmes are based on collective goals and a comprehensive approach to the economy.
This is the approach that up until now has been used by developed countries, and has also been proposed in developing countries by economic and banking institutions. This form of planning which could be termed "extraregulated" (as control of the socio-economic systems is regulated from the outside, i.e. the market) can be countered by "intraregulated" approaches involving "bottom-up" planning. Under this notion, a plan is a set of projects appraised and justified individually in which local choices are dominant. The national strategy is therefore a compendium of local strategies. This being so, it is not difficult to understand the opposition to such a decentralized and self-administered approach, and why governments shy away from it.
A third alternative has therefore been explored, based on a complex dialectic drawing from both the bottom-up and top-down approaches. This alternative, which is linked to the progression of the ecodevelopment, sustainability and participation concept, gradually grew in the 1980s. The forestry sector, under shock from the failure of the "productivist" approach, has been receptive, but implementation has been mainly limited to developing countries (some developed countries now appear to be voicing an interest following the Rio Conference) and to aspects of development outside the global economy.