A Paradigm for a Micro-level Rural Development Strategy

N. VINK*(1) and W. E. KASSIER *(2)EFFORTS DIRECTED at the systematic, accelerated development of most less developed countries (LDCs) can be dated from theearly post-war years*(3) and arose from contemporary perceptions of the then existing conditions in those countries. Variousattempts have been made to formulate a general theory of development, but the common element of all theoretical approaches isthat they represent only partial models, and integration of these into a general theory has not yet been accomplished.*(4)A review of the evolution of thought on economic development*(5)shows, however, that a consensus may be emerging as regards the objectives of a new development strategy, concerning thetarget group for whose benefit the strategy should be implemented, and the framework within which it should be constructed.One element of this consensus is that there exists a need to increase food production in the LDCs, and the object of this article is toidentify a paradigm within which a micro-level strategy towards this end may be formulated.Section 1 below contains a brief summary of the nature of the consensus, and in Section 2 a framework for micro-level developmentis formulated by means of the capacity-performance model of Ellis.*(6)In terms of Ellis's model, development is defined as the removal of barriers to the ability of a society to achieve the welfare objectives of itsmembers, where such ability depends on the efficient functioning of the welfare feedback loops which operate within that society. In order totranslate this definition into operational

1983 SAJE v51(2) p284

proposals for development, it is necessary to identify existing barriers and to study the nature of social efficiency. These twoaspects of the matter are discussed in Section Three. In the fourth and final section an operational model for development at themicro-level is proposed.

1 The Definition and Goals of the Target GroupTheories of development have changed in recent years as regards both the target group of development planning and the goals ofdevelopment itself. The focus has shifted from increasing the per capita income of a country to meeting the "basic needs" of therural poor. We also discuss the related shift of policy emphasis from a macro-to a micro-level.There is much evidence to show that the majority of the poor in the LDCs live in the rural sector. It seems obvious, therefore, thatdevelopment efforts should be aimed at providing for the rural poor also. Earlier theories of development were, however, lessconcerned with poor individuals than with poor countries. Such theories have been broadly classified as thegrowth-stage*(7)and the dual-economy*(8) theories.One major criticism of these theories is that they fail to explain how one should deal with the various mechanisms of development.This problem has, however, been addressed by the bimodal*(9) strategies in agricultural development. Their major contribution liesin the investigation of the mechanisms of development and the emphasis placed on the agricultural sector. The operational aspectof economic development thus came to be associated with agricultural development. Tomlinson*(10) perceived this in the SouthAfrican situation at an early stage. These agricultural

1983 SAJE v51(2) p285

development theories were at first aimed at improving production and productivity in agriculture, i.e. at economic factors, althoughlater writers included social aspects as subsidiary goals.*(11) Probably the most refined of these two-sector agriculturaldevelopment models, which had their origin in dynamic dualism models, is the induced innovation model of Hayami andRuttan.*(12)The emphasis on growth as the major objective, added to the implicit acceptance of the proposition that development efforts beaimed at a country as a whole rather than at the poor within the country, led to the emergence of development strategies whichhave failed in almost all respects, despite the unparalleled economic growth rates of the 1960s.*(13) The objectives of developmentwere wrong; as Fossi put it: "the poor are still present, in spite of having been overlooked by economists.*(14)United Nations resolution No. 2681 (xxv), passed by the General Assembly on 11 December 1970, gave publicity to a decisive reorientation indesired development strategy. This was termed the "unified" or "integrated" approach. According to this, development should not be seen assolely an economic process, but as one that affects the whole society. So far this approach has not led to any operational proposals for problemsolving, mostly because of apparently insoluble problems relating to the collection of data.The integrated rural development approach can be contrasted with the various sectoral models chiefly with regard to the objectivefunction of development. It envisages greater participation of the rural poor in development strategies aimed at providing for theirminimum needs. The four elements of this "basic needs" strategy are to:

190

1. provide for the minimum requirements of private consumption (food, shelter, clothing) at the family level;2. ensure the provision of essential communal services (education, clean water);3. create productive employment; and4. facilitate active participation by the rural poor in the process of development.*(15)The basic needs approach was based on the contention that it was neither feasible nor desirable for the LDCs to pursue adevelopment strategy aimed at creating a "consumer society" on the Western model. Meeting the basic needs of the entirepopulation was seen as more important than attainment of Western levels of

1983 SAJE v51(2) p286

consumption by a privileged minority.*(16)From the global point of view, one development objective must be higher food production in order to support ever-increasingpopulation numbers.*(17)A system must therefore be devised whereby agricultural output can be increased without adverselyaffecting the present and future living standards of the rural population. The experience of development planners has also led tothe realization that they have overlooked an essential link represented by the dominant type of production unit in agriculture,namely the smallholder.*(18)The hypothesis in this paper is that, although macro-policies aimed at economic growth may have failed, it is still necessary toincrease food production. A successful policy that enables the individual farmer to increase his output would also allow theresponsible development agency to pursue a basic needs strategy as it sees fit. The object of the present study is therefore toascertain the means by which small holders can increase their food production; and it is assumed that the provision of the otheraspects of basic needs is external to their decision-making authority. However, before proposing policy measures to increase theproduction capability of smallholders, it is first necessary to define "development".

2 Development DefinedDevelopment has been defined in many different ways*(19) and it is possible to classify these definitions according to theconceptual models on which they are based.*(20)One of the most common conceptions of development is in terms of goal-achievement: if there is movement towards apredetermined number of goals or values, then development is said to have taken place. Another conceptual model is one favouredmostly by sociologists. Here national progress or development is seen in terms of the organic unfolding of the economy, suchorganic models being usually defined in terms of certain distinctive stages or sequences. A third model can be called thetechnological-educational model, where development is measured in terms of education, by means of which the individualacquires new technological knowledge and skills. The critical element of technological change or innovation

1983 SAJE v51(2) p287

is emphasized in this context. A further model can be termed the input-output conceptual model. Here national growth is likenedto a manufacturing process where the "right" kinds and combinations of inputs must be found to achieve maximum output. A fifthconceptual model is the capacity-performance model. On this view, development is defined as the enhancement of the capacityof society to function for the well-being of its members in the long term. The last conceptual model is the systems model. In thiscase, development amounts to an evolving system of factors which influence and are in turn influenced by each other.Criticism of these respective models may be based on the following arguments:1. It is not possible to arrive at an exclusive definition of development in terms of movement towards a predetermined set of goalsor values;2. the organic model has the disadvantage that its underlying assumption posits the inevitability of development;3. the technological-educational model does not take into account the causal links between factors in the development process;4. the input-output model largely ignores the qualitative aspects of development;5. the capacity-performance model has the major defect of being a one-way model in a situation of circular causation orinterdependence; and6. the systems model represents a problem in that it is difficult to identify all the relevant influences and to ascertain their reciprocalimpacts.A suitable definition of "development" for the purpose of the present study may be derived from the capacity-performance modeldevised by G. F. R. Ellis.*(21) This model conceives society as a cybernetic system which operates to sustain and improve the livesof its members through feedback loops that transmit signals about the desired direction of action to the control mechanisms of thesocial system.*(22) The concept of society as a cybernetic system recognizes the interdependent nature of the functions ofsociety, and thus incorporates the major advantages of the systems model, without introducing the complexities of the operationalproposals emanating from it.

191

Our postulate, therefore, is that the welfare of a group in a given environment at a specific time is dependent on the functioning ofthe welfare feedback system. If this system is efficient, the group can attain its welfare goals, while impediments to its efficientoperation can lead to failure by the group to reach these goals. Development can therefore be defined as the removal ofbarriers to the ability of society to attain its welfare goals. These barriers can be categorized as natural and physical;institutional;

1983 SAJE v51(2) p288

and human.*(23) Given that the barriers to the efficient functioning of the welfare feedback loops have been identified andclassified, it becomes necessary to investigate the nature of the efficiency of the relevant feedback loops in an economicallyunderdeveloped society.

3 The Nature of EfficiencyExplanations pertaining to peasant conservatism and reluctance to innovate ("accommodation") can be grouped into two generalviewpoints.*(24) These are, first, that the scarcity of peasants' resources leads to attitudes which inhibit personal initiative andtend to regard innovative people as rapacious and greedy. It is contended that once a few peasants cross the threshold ofmodernity, an increasing number will follow. This does not, however, change the assumption that peasant social structurespreclude all possibility of large numbers manoeuvering themselves into more favourable economic circumstances.This view contrasts with that of Schultz,*(25) whose "efficiency hypothesis" has been accepted as a basic tenet in the field ofagricultural development: "There are comparatively few significant inefficiencies in the allocation of factors of production intraditional agriculture."*(26) Support for this hypothesis came, first, from recognition of the fact that economic factors were moreimportant barriers to development than cultural or cognitive factors, and second, from empirical verification*(27) of the efficiencyhypothesis.In order better to explain the concept of efficiency, it is necessary first to study Schultz's efficiency hypothesis and briefly outlinethe criticism against it. The hypothesis assumes that traditional agriculture is practised in a static physical, cultural and economicenvironment, and that farmers can therefore be expected to gravitate, over time, towards an optimal use of inputs (allocativeefficiency). Schultz assumed that these farmers were efficient in the allocation of their resources, and then proposed policymeasures aimed at the introduction

1983 SAJE v51(2) p289

of new technologies*(28) and teaching the farmers how to use them. Schultz did not, however, take into account that theintroduction of new technology would cause the farmers' general environment to change, while there is no evidence to suggestthat they could be relied upon to make efficient decisions in a dynamic environment.*(29)Criticism against the efficiency hypothesis has been threefold: First, Cleave*(30) doubted whether such a static environment hasever existed, and Heady*(31) termed the theoretical framework assumed by Schultz an "extreme proposition". Secondly, theempirical foundation of the hypothesis has been drawn into question. Shapiro*(32) doubted the accuracy of such empirical studiesas those by Hopper, Welsch, Chennareddy and Sahota. He was also of the opinion that even if these studies did show theequivalence of marginal value product and marginal factor cost, it must be remembered that they reflect the assumption that allfarmers operate on the same Cobb-Douglas production function, because the calculation of marginal value product and marginalfactor cost in all the abovementioned studies is based on average input-output ratios and elasticity coefficients.Shapiro himself contributed to the analysis of efficiency in traditional agriculture by distinguishing between allocative andtechnical efficiency. This distinction has important implications for development strategies. If farmers have already achievedallocative efficiency, then development strategies should be aimed at providing new investment streams in order to establish moreproductive technology. On the other hand, farmers who do not allocate their resources efficiently must first be given aid in the formof education and extension services.*(33)Sampath*(34) took the distinction between allocative and technical efficiency a step further and established the third line ofcriticism against the efficiency hypothesis by isolating the causes of inefficiency in agriculture. Both the system and the individualmay act as causes of inefficiency in an economy. Sampath defined the system (or the environment) as consisting of

1983 SAJE v51(2) p290

those factors which influence a farmer's decision-making, but over which he has no control. The system is perfect if it satisfies allthe conditions of a perfect market, that is, if it provides perfect mobility of factors of production, perfect competition in factor andproduct markets, and otherwise perfect market conditions.The individual, on the other hand, is the decision-maker. The decision-maker is said to be rational if he seeks to maximize profit,given the characteristics of the system. In the light of these distinctions, perfect economic efficiency is then defined as that state of

192

affairs when both the system and the individuals are allocatively and technically efficient. Output generated under these idealcircumstances can be called Pareto optimal, and the actual output achieved by farmers can be compared to this norm in order toascertain the prevailing level of economic efficiency.*(35)In this model, economic inefficiency can be classified according to whether there exist imperfections in the achievement of allocative or technicalefficiency, or whether these are caused by inefficiency at the system level or at the individual level.It is apparent that both the system and the individual can be the cause of inefficiency, or act as barriers to efficiency. The system,being defined as consisting of those factors which influence the farmer but over which he has no control, includes the natural andphysical environment and existing institutional structure. The individual in turn represents the human factor. In terms of thecapacity-performance model proposed earlier, policy measures must therefore be aimed at removing barriers to technical andallocative efficiency that exist in the natural, physical and institutional environment as well as on the part of the smallholder. Thefollowing section sets out the manner in which these proposals may be formulated.

4 an Operational Model: The Micro-LevelIn commercial agriculture the most common approach to training farmers how to make optimal decisions is that of individual farmmanagement.*(36) This approach is impractical in traditional African agriculture as farms are generally smaller, with a larger numberof farmers.*(37) Individual guidance is expensive, especially when the high cost of scarce managerial talent with regard to thealternative needs of development programmes is taken into account. A group management approach is

1983 SAJE v51(2) p291

therefore proposed.*(38) An underlying assumption of this approach is that the group should consist of farmers operating undermore or less similar working conditions.*(39)Knowledge of the causes and sources of inefficiency for different farm-size groups (e.g. as identified by Sampath) can assist in formulating policyproposals for increasing agricultural production on a national or regional basis. At the micro-level, however, farms may be of similar size, and arational basis must then be found for dividing farmers into groups of similar efficiency in order to render the group management approachfeasible.In order to do this it is necessary first to gain an understanding of the nature of mass poverty. Mass poverty occurs mostly in ruralareas and it is also intractable - the rural poor subsist in an equilibrium state of poverty.*(40) Another important characteristic ofrural poverty is that once its equilibrium is upset, it will be restored by spontaneous forces. For example, external investment in ruraldevelopment, which makes possible increased food production may well lead to an increase in population and thus the restorationof previous levels of subsistence.*(41)Galbraith sees this equilibrium condition of poverty as a process of "accomodation".*(42) People in developed countries havebecome accommodated to increasing incomes, while poor people accommodate themselves to poverty. Accommodation is,however, not complete - there is always a minority which seeks to escape the poverty trap. Moreover, the proportion of those whodo not accommodate is expected to rise as the possibility of escape from poverty increases.Traditional farmers may therefore be grouped together according to whether they are: accommodators; non-accommodators whohave yet to escape the equilibrium of poverty; and non-accommodators who have already escaped the equilibrium of poverty. It isassumed here that the factors which identify the degree of accommodation of small holders can be used to divide them intofunctional groups which display similar characteristics with regard to the causes and sources of inefficiency.Data from an empirical study*(43) pertaining

1983 SAJE v51(2) p292

to the attitudes of small holders on the Grootfontein and Success irrigation schemes in Lebowa are used below to illustrate thegrouping of small holders in this manner. It must be noted that these groups should be both mutually exclusive and collectivelyexhaustive.(a) Farmer GroupingGroup 1 consists of farmers who have their origin in the Mathabatha village where the irrigation works are situated and who haveno access to alternative sources of income. This includes all female plot holders as well as the male plot holders with the lowestaverage income. Group 2 are farmers who have access to alternative sources of income and who also have their origin in theMathabatha village. This group represents farmers with the highest average income from on-farm sources. Group 3 are those whooriginally came from places other than the Mathabatha village.In order to ascertain their attitudes, they were asked questions relating to education, marketing, labour availability and the use oflabour. Responses to these questions are shown in Table 1. Percentages refer to the proportion of "negative" responses to eachvariable, as explained below.First, farmers were asked whether all their children of school-going age were attending school; if not, reasons had to be given.

193

Responses that they could not afford to send them to school were construed as a "negative" attitude towards education .*(44)Such farmers put a low priority on education. Their perception is that they cannot afford the expense because of a low income,which is seen as a sign of accommodation: they do not perceive the value of education.Second, farmers were asked to specify their career choice for their sons. The contention here is that farmers who desire their sonsalso to become farmers display a "negative" attitude, i.e. an attitude of accommodation.The third and fourth indicators dealt with farmers' attitudes to wheat prices and transport arrangements for their wheat. Mostfarmers were dissatisfied - the price of wheat was considered too low and transport too expensive. A negative attitude wasconstrued as one of satisfaction with prevailing practices. This may be so for a number of reasons, e.g. the farmer could haveaccommodated himself to present circumstances, or in the case of Group 3, he may not wish to record a disapproval for fear of theconsequences.Fifth, farmers were asked whether they were experiencing labour shortages, and what they were doing about it. Most farmersprofessed to be ex-

1983 SAJE v51(2) p293

Table 1 Attitudes of Three Groups of Farmers

Attitude towards: Labour use

Farmer Number of Education Sons' Wheat Transport Labour Sowing Weeding Crop

group farmers career prices of wheat availability protection

Group 1 22 73 64 46 41 95 86 86

Group 2 10 0 0 0 0 80 10 10

Group 3 6 0 0 33 33 50 50 33

All

farmers 38 42 37 34 32 84 60 58

Note: All figures except those of the first column are percentages. These refer to the proportion of "negative" attitudes displayedby members of each group (see text). Source: Vink. N., op. cit., p. 125.

1983 SAJE v51(2) p294

experiencing such shortages, and most of them (84 per cent) said they were doing nothing about it. This response providesevidence of varying degrees of accommodation, in the sense that the use of hired labour is a commercial farming practice.The last four questions on farmers' attitudes concern the type of labour used in crop production. They use either only femalelabour, both female and male child labour, both female and male labour, or hired labour of either sex. The use of the first twoalternatives suggests an attitude of accommodation (given the traditional role of women in agriculture). A negative response wastherefore construed as referring to the first two alternatives.The results for Group 2 indicate that those farmers predominantly use male labour (i.e. they also work their lands themselves), whileTable 1 shows that those in Group 3 resort more to female labour, and combined with their use of labour for these four tasks, theconclusion can be drawn that they hire labour in order to allow themselves more time for off-farm employment. This would suggesta higher degree of non-accommodation among farmers in Group 3 as compared to those in Group 2. The latter augment their incomefrom off-farm sources in the face of labour shortages while trying to carry on farming operations as well.In summary, therefore, farmers in Group 1 can be classified as accommodators, while farmers in Group 2, display some evidence ofnon-accommodation, but no unambiguous conclusion can be drawn as to whether they are either accommodators ornon-accommodators. Group 3 farmers were classified as non-accommodators.A division of this kind leads to the hypothesis that the farmers in each group should display levels of inefficiency with a commoncause and source. Vink*(45)has tested this hypothesis by deduction, while Sampath*(46) proposes a linear programmingmethodology to measure actual levels of inefficiency for each group.(b) Policy ProposalsIn the light of the above analysis, two types of policy proposals for combating poverty can be identified. These are, first, aformulation of policy proposals aimed at increasing the number of people seeking to escape the equilibrium trap of poverty.Accommodation can be broken either by trauma or by education.*(47) Education is presumably preferable and should be aimed atas many of the rural poor as possible and be universal by nature.*(48)The second policy proposal is that mechanisms to escape the equilibrium of poverty must be set up. Escape can take one of two

194

forms: escape within the equilibrium of

1983 SAJE v51(2) p295

poverty (e.g. by becoming a more progressive farmer) and escape from the equilibrium of poverty (e.g. by emigration).According to Galbraith*(49)once policy measures aimed at teaching people to reject accommodation have been instituted, thepossibility of escape within the equilibrium of poverty arises. Investment aimed at increasing agricultural production andinstruction in improved farming methods become feasible. Such efforts must, however, follow the general educational attack onaccommodation and must be aimed only at those farmers who have already rejected accommodation. These policy proposals,however, take only individual inefficiency into account, and proposals for development must also be aimed at combating systeminefficiency.From an analysis of Sampath's model it was shown that both the individual and the system could be either allocatively ortechnically inefficient, so that policy proposals for development should be aimed at removing the barriers to the attainment ofindividual and of system economic efficiency. These proposals can be readily identified, and are briefly discussed below.First, proposals can be aimed at, increasing the technical efficiency of the system. This entails the provision of an appropriateinfrastructure to support farming activities (i.e. the removal of physical barriers to development).Second, policy proposals can be aimed at improving the allocative efficiency of the system. This includes, chiefly, the provision ofthe right inputs to the farmer at the right price, the proper diffusion of information and the provision of a market for the sale of farmproducts. The price efficiency of the input and output markets must therefore be improved. This entails the removal of institutionalbarriers to development.Third, policy proposals can be aimed at improving the allocative efficiency of farmers in the use of inputs, the choice of what toproduce and in the sale of products, and are thus concerned with improving the decision-making abilities of farmers. Farmers notonly need education to improve their decision-making, but an educational approach is also aimed at teaching farmers to benon-accommodators.Fourth, proposals can be aimed at improving the technical efficiency of farmers. New technologies should be introduced into theproduction process, and the pace of their adoption will depend on the innovativeness of farmers. This in turn will depend on theextent to which individual farmers are accommodators or not. Farmers who are accommodators should receive education, whilethose who are not, should be encouraged to adopt new techniques of production.In summary, therefore, an operational model for development at the

1983 SAJE v51(2) p296

micro-level will entail the classification of farmers into functional groups according to their degree of accommodation to theequilibrium of poverty, the identification of major causes and sources of inefficiency for each group, and the formulation of policyproposals to remove barriers to the economic efficiency of the system and of the individual.

5 Conclusion The current consensus in development thinking is that policy efforts should be aimed at meeting the basic needs of the rural poor.One element of such basic needs is improved food production, and the object of this article was to suggest measures whereby thiscould be achieved on an existing small-scale development project.Development was defined as the process of removing barriers to efficiency in society. This could be achieved by identifyingexisting barriers, and analysing the nature of prevailing efficiency (or inefficiency).A group management approach to removing natural and physical, institutional, and human barriers to the allocative and technicalefficiency of both the individual and the system is proposed.University of the North, Sovenga, andUniversity of Stellenbosch

195

Endnotes1 Lecturer, Department of Agricultural Economics. University of the North. Sovenga.

2 Professor of Agricultural Economics. University of Stellenbosch. This paper is based on: Vink. N., "Micro-LevelDevelopment Strategies for the Grootfontein and Success Irrigation Schemes in Lebowa" (Unpublished MSc. (Agric) thesis.University of Stellenbosch. 1981). The authors would like to thank the editors for valuable assistance with a previousversion of this paper.

3 World Bank. "World Development Report" (Washington, D.C.: IBRD, 1979) p. 3.

4 Fényes. T. L. "Potential Applicability of Certain Socialistic Farming Practices for Rural Development in Non-Socialist LessDeveloped Countries" in Johnston. Glenn and Allen Maunder (eds) Rural Change: The Challenge for Agricultural Economics(Westmead. England: Gower Publishing Co.. 1981). p. 659.

5 Vink. N., op cit.. pp 31-42.

6 Ellis. G. F. R., " 'The Quality of Life' Concept. An Overall Framework for Assessment Schemes" (University of Cape Town, SALDRUWorking Paper No. 3. July 1980).

7 Strategy". Economics. 17. 1978, pp. 82-85; Rostow. W W , "The Stages of Economic Growth (a Non-Communist Manifesto)".(New York Cambridge University Press. 1960). For a more detailed discussion see: Hoselitz. F. "Theories ofStages of Economic Growth", in Hoselitz. B. F (ed.). Theories of Economic Growth (Glencoe. Illinois: The Free Press. 1960) pp191-238; Hayami. Y. and Vernon Rattman. "Agricultural Development: An International Perspective" (Baltimore: The Johns HopkinsPress. 1971) pp 10-12; El-Shagi, "The Relevance of Predominant Theories of Economic Integration for Development

8 Cf. Boeke. J. H., "Economics and Economic Policy of Dual Societies" (Haarlem, H D Tjeenk Willink, 1953); Higgins. Benjamin "The'Dualistic Theory' of Underdeveloped Areas", Economic Development and Cultural Change. 4, 1955. pp. 99-115; and Myint.H., "The Economics of Developing Countries" (London: Hutchinson University Library. 1964) pp. 69-84.

9 Cf. Lewis, W. A.. "Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour" Manchester School of Economics and SocialStudies, 22. May 1954. pp. 139-91; also Jorgenson, D. W.. "The Development of a Dual Economy", Economic Journal, 71, June1961, pp. 309-34, and "Testing Alternative Theories of Development of a Dual Economy". in Adelman. E. and Thorbecke. E. (eds).The Theory and Design of Economic Development (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. 1966) pp 45-60; "SurplusAgricultural Labour and the Development of a Dual Economy". Oxford Economic Papers, 19 November 1967. pp 288-312; and Fei.J. C. H. and Ranis. G . Development of the Labour Surplus Economy: Theory and Policy (Homewood, Illinois- Richard D.Irwin Inc. 1964).

10 Tomlinson Commission "Summary of the Report of the Commission for the Socio-Economic Development of the Bantu Areaswithin the Union of South Africa" (Pretoria: Government Printer. UG 61/1955).

11 Wulf. R. "On the Concept of 'Integrated' Rural Development, Economics 17.1978. p 66Johnston B. F . Page. J M. and Warr. P"Criteria for the Design of Agricultural Development Strategies". Food Research lnstitute Studies. 11. 1 1972

12 Hayami. Y. and Vernon Ruttan. op cit

13 Grant. J P . "Growth from Below: A People-Orientated Development Strategy". O.D.C. Development Paper No 16. December 1973

14 Fossi. G.. "New Elements for Decision-Making". in Nossin. Jan. J (ed ) Surveys for Development (Amsterdam. Elseviers. 1977) p

196

172.

15 Jolly. R . "Changing Views on Development". in Nossin. Jan J (ed ) op cit, pp. 20-22.

16 Aziz. S . "Rural Development - Learning from China" (London: Macmillan. 1978) p xv ; Curry. R. L. and Donald Rothchild. "TheFiscal Costs of a Basic Human Needs Strategy", The Journal of Modern African Studies. 18, 1. March 1980. p 143

17 King. R T F.. "Population, Food Supplies and Economic Growth" in Hutchinson. J. (ed ). Population and Food Supply (CambridgeCambridge University Press, 1969) p 45; Streeten. P P.. "Development Ideas in Historical Perspective", Economic Impact. No. 40.1982. p 16

18 Collinson M. P . "Farm Management in Peasant Agriculture" (New York Praeger Publishers. 1972). p. 2.

19 Cf Flammang. R. A.. "Economic Growth and Economic Development - Counterparts or Competitors?". Economic Developmentand Cultural Change. 28, 1 October. 1979. pp. 47-49 for a discussion of these definitions.

20 McGranahan. D.. "Development Indicators and Development Models". The Journal of Development Studies, 8. 3. April 1972, p.95

21 Ellis. G. F R op. cit. For the deduction of this definition cf. Vink. N. op. cit, pp 46-52.

22 ibid, p. 11

23 Cf. Vink. N., op. cit., pp. 52-54

24 Clawson. D L., "Intravillage Wealth and Peasant Agricultural Innovation" The Journal of Developing Areas, 12, 3

25 Schultz. T W., "Transforming Traditional Agriculture" (New Haven Yale University Press, 1964)

26 lbid, p. 37.

27 Cf Tax, S., Penny Capitalism (Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 1953. Reprint 1975); Hopper. W. D., "The EconomicOrganization of a Village in North Central India" (Cornell University, Unpublished PhD. dissertation 1957);Hopper. W D.,"Allocation Efficiency in Traditional Indian Agriculture" Journal of Farm Economics. 47, 3. August 1965; Welsch. D. E ,"Response to Economic Incentives by Abakaliki Rice Farmers in Eastern Nigeria", Journal of Farm Economics. 47, 4 November1965; Chennareddy. V., "Production Efficiency in South Indian Agriculture", Journal of Farm Economics.49. 4 November1967;Sahota. G S., "Efficiency of Resource Allocation in Indian Agriculture". American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 50.3. August 1968; EI-Shagi, Ibid; Herdt, R W. and A. M. Mandac. "Modern Technology and Economic Efficiency of Phillipine RiceFarmers". Economic Development and Cultural Change. 29. 2January 1981.

28 Cf also Low. A R C., "Small Farm Improvement Strategies - The Implication of a Computer Simulation Study of Indigenous Farmingm South East Ghana". The Journal of Development Studies, 12. 4. July 1976. p 135

29 Mellor, J. W., "The Subsistence Farmer in Traditional Economics" in Wharton. C. R Jr (ed.). Subsistence Agriculture andEconomic Development (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1970). p. 216.

30 Cleave J. H., African Farmers: Labour use in the Development of Smallholder Agriculture (New York Praeger Publishers.1974). p 202

31

197

Heady. E O., "Micro-level Accomplishments and Challenges for the Developed World", in Johnson. Glenn and Allen Maunder(eds).op. cit.. pp 37-38

32 Shapiro. K H., Efficiency Differentials in Peasant Agriculture and their Implecations for Economic Policies (Oxford: Universityof Oxford Institute of Agricultural Economics. 1977). pp 89-94

33 Ibid. p. 95

34 Sampath. R K., "Nature and Measurement of Economic Efficiency in Indian Agriculture". Indian Journal of AgriculturalEconomics. 34. 2, 1979, pp 17-34.

35 Ibid. p. 21.

36 Dillon. J. L.. "An Evaluation of the State of Affairs in Farm Management". South African Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1.1. 1979. pp. 7-13.

37 Collinson. M. P., "Micro-level Accomplishments and Challenges for the Less Developed World" in Johnson, Glenn and AllenMaunder (eds). Ibid, p. 44.

38 Cf. De Wilde, J. C., "Experiences with Agricultural Development in Tropical Africa. Volume I. The Synthesis" (Baltimore: The JohnsHopkins Press. 1967), p. 166; Fényes. T. I., "Farm Management Viewpoints for Traditional Agriculture". Paper read at the FarmManagement Conference of the Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa. Stellenbosch. 1978, p. 16; Fényes. T. L. N.Vink and C. J. van Rooyen, "Farm Management Approaches and Rural Change-Individual Versus Group Management". Invitedpaper read at the Fourth International Farm Management Congress. Tel Aviv, June. 1980.

39 Johnson. R. W M., "The African Village Economy - An Analytical Model", The Farm Economists. 10. 9. 1968.

40 Galbraith. J. K.. The Nature of Mass Poverty (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1979) p 48.

41 Ibid. p. 51.

42 Cf. also Mellor, J. W., "The Economics of Agricultural Development" (Ithaca: The Cornell University Press, 1966). pp. 244-45.

43 Vink, N.. op. cit., pp 70-119.

44 A separate study of small holders in Lebowa by Fenyes* shows that only 2.8 per cent of less progressive farmers would send theirchildren to school if the necessary finance was available.

45 Vink. N. op. cit.. pp. 123-35

46 Sampath, op. cit

47 Galbraith. J. K. op. cit., p. 83.

48 Ibid. pp 84-85.

49 Ibid. pp. 86-87

198