An attempt was made to analyze the administrative problems of United States technical assistance to community development and agricultural extension programs in the Philippines, Pakistan, Iran, Thailand, and Nigeria, with emphasis on field problems and on the point of view of local administrators, field technicians, and local people. The concept of community development was too vague, and the concept of agricultural extension too general, to provide constructive guidelines for a process whereby recipients can grow and manifest themselves in terms of culturally determined and nationally acceptable goals. Conflict and confusion existed between the two programs with regard to roles, organizations, planning and coordination of related activities, and the training of front-line workers. The donor's management of assistance was not serving as a helpful model for change. "Nationalized" concepts of community development and agricultural extension often did not conform to the ideas originally introduced by technical assistance. Foreign community development technicians in developing nations should be basically administrative innovators; agricultural extension technicians should be innovative specialists who can work with other specialized services in modernizing agricultural science and technology; and controls on use of aid should not hinder local initiative or the development of indigenous institutions. (author/ly)