Perkins expresses regret at ending the Sudanese project, which the institute cannot continue because of security problems--the project site is precariously close to the north-south border of the Sudanese civil war--and because of "differences of opinion" between HIID and the primary source of funds for the project, the federal Agency for International Development (AID).

"The HIID philosophy is to use simple technology, to create as quickly as possible the ability to do jobs without us," he says, adding. "The idea is not just to leave a well behind, but to think about the kind of technology that will be needed to operate it. The AID evaluators questioned that approach."

AID favored more emphasis on higher technology, which HIID could not afford to provide. Perkins says, adding. "Doing it the way we did, it was expensive enough."

But unlike the vast majority of humanitarian programs, both at the University and elsewhere, HIID is unlikely to come closer than this to budgetary woes. Though Perkins says finances were his "main concern" on taking office, the Reagan budget cuts as now projected should have little effect on HIID.

Between direct payments from governments for some projects, grants from the Ford Foundation and other organizations, and donations from AID and the United Nations Development Project--with the last two forming the bulk of the HIID budget--funds are "sufficiently diversified to avert disaster," Perkins says.

HIID fellows and staff uniformly shy away from specualting on the directions the Institute might have taken with Harberger as its director. 'That's all history," a former Harberger supporter says, adding. "I don't know of anyone here who would prefer Harberger now."