Implications for Development Policies
The socio-economic differentiation that was described above
shows that agriculture today is not the same as it was 50
years ago. The cultivation of land cannot be regarded as being
primarily cultivation carried out by small farms employing
all of the labour available in the cultivating family and
providing subsistence for these people.
Perhaps it would be necessary to explain the different types
of land cultivating households by using a different paradigm.
Instead of farms, it might be better to speak of households
that utilize all of the resources they have available to them
(land, labour and – perhaps – some capital) to
secure their survival and raise their standard of living.
Depending on the specific resource endowment, this can take
place in various ways. If sufficient land is available, the
household might concentrate on farming, and agriculture is
their sole activity. But if there is a shortage of land, people
have to make other arrangements in order to earn their living.
They either try to find additional non-agricultural employment
and, thus, increase their total income, or they engage in
household production and avoid expenses. Another possibility
would be that only an older couple lies off the land instead
of a family.
Naturally the functions of land cultivation vary between these
different socio-economic types of households. For household
which have adequate land, the key function is to create a
reasonable means of existence for the members and to produce
food and raw materials in order to achieve self-sufficiency
as well as to sell on the market.
For household which do not have enough land, some of these
functions play a minor role only, while others become more
important. Partial self-sufficiency is still a goal, but old-age
security, financing the costs of training and migration and
security in case of unemployment become more important.
With changing functions of land, the goals which people have
regarding their cultivation will change. Households which
have sufficient land will increase their production and productivity
as a means of increasing their income. Thus, they take advantage
of the possibilities offered by modern technology and the
market. Side-goals they have are to facilitate the work and
provide security for their old age. Households which do not
have sufficient land are much less interested in increasing
their yields. Their experience has been that if they have
only a small amount of acreage at their disposal, an increase
in yields will not make much of a difference in the end. Instead
of producing the highest possible yield, they are more interested
in the investing the least possible labour input and the smallest
possible investment in agricultural production. This makes
it possible to engage the existing labour force outside agriculture.
If one is successful in securing a permanent non-agricultural
job, the financial outcome is much better than all efforts
invested in agriculture. Traditional agriculture provides
them with self-sufficiency and keeps the land in the hands
of the family. This is an important form of security for the
household. One has a rural home and a place to live in one’s
old age in familiar surroundings. In some cases, the land
functions as the family’s savings bank.
The changing functions of land and land-cultivating families’
goals have consequences for suitable measures for development
policies. In view of the large differences in agriculture,
it is impossible to develop a uniform policy for all household
types.
For households which have sufficient land – i.e., large
landowners, progressive farmers and economic holdings –
agricultural policies are a suitable policy instrument. Price
policies, structure policies and innovation policies are a
help to such farms and their cultivators. They would probably
profit the most from a liberalization of the produce and factor
markets and ‘globalization’ as they are already
market integrated and, in some cases, export-oriented and
experienced in reacting to changing policies.
Especially in the case of the smaller farms among this category,
the supporting institutions (cooperatives, extension services
and credit facilities) are of great importance and have significant
effects and, at the same time, generate increases in the food
production and food security. Whatever changes in the agrarian
structure have still not taken place in the case of the landlords
must be provided by agrarian reform measures.
But only about one-quarter of all of the land cultivating
households belong to this group, while three-quarters of the
households do not have enough land and have to rely on multiple
employment and/or household production for their existence,
or belong to an older couple, or are marginal. To them, agricultural
policy measures are of lesser interest. Structural policy
measures or agrarian reform can, indeed, provide a possibility
for increasing the size of the farm and, thus, cause an ‘upward’
development on the farm. Most of the agricultural policy instruments,
however, have little impact for these households and, therefore,
hardly represent their interests. This includes supporting
institutions for agriculture. A marginal farmer has nothing
to sell through the cooperative because he needs all of his
produce for his own home consumption. Multiple employment
households are not those which regularly consult extension
services, and no bank of cooperative will grant a lone or
give credit to the holdings of older people. One cannot help
these people by means of agricultural policy measures with
perhaps the exception of some cases at the margin between
both types.
Any promotion of the households which do not have sufficient
land has to take into consideration the fact that the long-term
focus of these people’s interest is usually outside
agriculture and that the small size of their farms necessarily
limits the quantitative effects of all agricultural measures.
The regional development policy measures (which to some extent
include agricultural policy measures) provide better prospect
for these groups. The promotion of employment, diversification
of the economy in rural areas and smoothening the transition
from farming to non-agricultural jobs by means of appropriate
professional training help these people. In certain areas
in which the relation between the population and resources
has become too narrow, a certain degree of outmigration is
necessary in order to preserve the ecosystem from damage due
to overuse.
The discussion showed that the socio-economic differentiation
among land-cultivating households has had a strong impact
on man – land relations. Today, instead of households
that employ their labour on land of varying size and live
off the yields of the land, we have a broad differentiation
in the kind of relation of people to the land. Whereas in
former times the focus of all of the household members was
on the land and differences in access to land resulted in
differences in income, today these differences concern not
only the control of land, but the source of livelihood and
the interest in agriculture as well. Not every young man hopes
that he can continue to cultivate his father’s land.
He may want to if the land is adequate in size and of good
quality and has access to irrigation. But if the size is small,
the soil poor and irrigation possibilities limited or non-existent,
then he may only feel forced to continue farming in the absence
of alternatives. However, many of these young men will continue
to look for alternatives, or at least a mix of income sources,
and hundreds of thousands of them will be successful sooner
or later.
Under such conditions of differentiation in man – land
relations and in the cultivators’ interest, a transition
from sectoral to a more regional approach in development efforts
would seem to be indicated. Moreover, a careful analysis of
the target groups regarding their conditions, interests and
requirements would be a precondition if the policies are to
be successful.
There is an urgent need to integrate this differentiation
in man – land relations in our development policies.
Applying it would provide the opportunity to concentrate resources
and agricultural policy instruments where they are needed,
wanted and affective for increasing the income of cultivators
and the production of food. With respect to the other households
in which agricultural policy measures cannot be effective
due to different circumstances and requirements and interests
of the people, let us not waste the scarce resources of agricultural
policy, but rather employ other policies for the people whose
main focus is outside agriculture.
next: 7. Changing Functions of Land for the Society
|