5 Consequences for Agricultural Development Theory
'Agriculture' is the cultivation of soil in order to produce
food and raw materials useful for human beings.
This production takes place in technical-organizational
units we call farms or agricultural holdings. Depending on
natural and socioeconomic circumstances, we have a great variety
of types of farms. But the most widespread one in the past
and, so to speak, the prototype in 'agriculture' is the family
farm. Characteristic of this family farm is that the family
members use their labour capacity on the farm and live off
the products of the farm. This family farm has proven a great
ability to adjust to the changing relations between labour
and land. Renting land or leasing it out, enlargement or reduction
of livestock, intensification or extensiftcation of cropping
are strategies of adjustment. Since ALBRECHT THAER, every
student of agricultural economics learns that the highest
profit is the goal of the farmer. This proves true for large
farms but as well for family farms, only that here some other
goals play a role, too, like self-sufficiency, risk aversion,
etc.
If one remembers the different socioeconomic types of holdings
mentioned above, then one must say that the notion of the
farm, on which the cultivator's family applies its labour
and lives off the farm product does not hold true as prototype
of agriculture.
Rather, in most cases the farm family members work on a
variety of jobs, whatever seems profitable to them, and the
family lives on the total income from agricultural and non-agricultural
sources. Chayanov in his theory of peasant economy was the
first to emphasize this difference. From family to family
(depending on age), from place to place (depending on economic
location), from farm to farm (depending on size and productivity)
and from time to time, the combination of incomes may vary
widely. The smaller the farm, the larger usually is the share
of non-agricultural income.
It appears that farm management went the wrong way or, at
least, has generalized its results too much. Farm management
originated and developed in north-western Europe and in the
United States, i.e. in regions with relatively large farms
and indeed these larger farms are technical-economic units,
for whom socioeconomic aspects can be neglected. For the large
number of small holdings in southern Europe, as well as in
most of the Tnird' World, the situation is quite different.
Here, the household is the centre, and the household members
try by optimal input of available resources to assure their
survival and to improve their livelihood.
This is possible in several ways, and most often by combining
several forms:
- by cultivation of the available land,
- by labouring for other farmers,
- by taking up non-agricultural work,
- by assuming commercial activities,
- by avoiding expenses through production and services
within the household or on an exchange basis with the neighbours.
This combination can be achieved by one person or by generations
living together and may change during lifetime.
It appears that households with sufficient land, good marketing
facilities and irrigation try to compensate for the reduction
in farm size due to the inheritance custom by intensifying
agriculture.
If the farm size is too small, or soil quality, irrigation
facilities and access to markets are bad, then using the manpower
outside agriculture usually brings higher incomes, even if
it takes some time and considerable expenses to find a job.
In time, this has consequences for the small holding. The
owner family may
- extensify in order to adjust to the reduced labour capacity,
- rent out part of the land,
- avoid investments as preparation for retiring later from
cultivation,
- change the cropping pattern with the goal of least labour
input,
- concentrate on crops with labour peaks for which relatives
are called.
As a result of all these considerations. I suggest that
a change in paradigma is necessary in order to make agricultural
and rural development policy more effective.
The current general theory of agriculture assumes that a
farm is cultivated by a family applying all of its labour
on the farm and living off the proceeds of this farm. The
goal of the farmer is a high net profit which will improve
his living and that of his family. The smaller the farm is,
the more other goals like self-sufficiency, risk aversion,
etc. become important side-conditions.
This theory of agriculture is all right for larger and medium-size
farms, and perhaps some highly intensive small farms near
the cities and with good irrigation facilities. But remember:
only 8% of all Pakistani farms are larger than 10 ha.
For the remaining 90% approximately, I suggest another theory,
which explains their circumstances perhaps more closely.:
Here we have a household, whose members, in order to assure
their survival and improve their livelihood, use all the available
resources - land and labour - wherever they get an optimum
return. This may be in agriculture, or in non-agricultural
activities, and may change in time. They select those fields,
which give them the highest total income, for applying their
efforts. I suggest that using these two theories of agriculture
- whenever they apply - may lead to a better understanding
of the reality in rural areas and, thus, to a more effective
mix of policy measures. I mentioned already the consequences
of this separation for politics. Forty years have changed
agriculture in Pakistan and elsewhere considerably. We have
to ask ourselves: What is agriculture today? Perhaps this
paper gives some hints towards an answer.
The agrarian sector in Pakistan's development
process
- Historial evidence and implications for policy and theory.
in: the Pakistan Development Review ; 28, H. 4, 1989,
S. 509-528.
|
