DEVELOPING CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS: THE CASE OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF CEARA, BRAZIL*

ROGER Fox? Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture,

University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA

(Received : 20 January, 1975)

SUMMARY

The expansion and increased eficiency of agriculture in developing countries depends at least as much on the growth of the applied social sciences, especially agricultural economics, as it does on applied sciences and technology. Agricultural economists are needed not only, for example, for cost-benefit analyses of technical programmes of irrigation, but also as potential planners and administrators. This paper critically discusses an attempt to apply United States university teaching methods to the production of ‘indigenous’ agricultural economists in Northeast Brazil.

INTRODUCTION

A fairly common activity in developing countries during the past 10 to 15 years has been the establishment of national and regional centres for advanced training in the agricultural disciplines. This activity has been supported by the national governments involved, with heavy outside support from AID (Agency for Inter- national Development of the US Government) and the foundations. Generally, the programmes developed have emphasised training at the Master’s degree level and are looked upon in part as substitutes for similar training in the United States or other developed countries. Support of these programmes fits in well with the AID and foundation goals of institution building and cost effectiveness. (The author feels that the argument concerning the savings involved should be studied in detail, taking into consideration all the relevant costs and benefits.) The develop-

* Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station Paper No. 94. t The author was Adviser in Agricultural Economics under the University of Arizona-AID Contract LA-145 from August 1970 through December 1973.

117 Agricultural Administration (2) (1975)-o Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1975 Printed in Great Britain

118 ROGER FOX

ment of indigenous graduate programmes is an obvious source of pride for the nations involved.

Within the agricultural economics profession, considerable attention has been given to the training of foreign graduate students in the United States. (The excellent article by Lewis’ contains a list of references on this subject.) However, the development of indigenous graduate programmes has received much less attention. Fienup,’ reviewed the development and performance of eight graduate agricultural economics programmes in Latin America. Three of the programmes reviewed by Fienup are in Brazil, including the oldest Latin American programme which was started at the Federal University of Vicosa in 1961. A fourth Brazilian programme, not considered by Fienup and the subject of the present paper, was started at the Federal University of Ceara in 1971. In this paper I will (a) discuss the general setting in which the programme developed, (b) review the content and operation of the programme, (c) indicate some of the specific problems confronted during the first two-and-a-half years of the programme, and (d) present some important general issues and questions raised by the Ceara experience.

THE SETTING

The Federal University of Ceara (UFC) is situated in Brazil’s principal problem region, the Northeast. Several excellent accounts of the history, development, and problems of this area have been written. Furtado’s book on the economic growth of BraziL4 Hirschman’s chapter6 and Robock’s book on the Northeast” are still standard references for English-speaking social scientists. More recent works of interest to economists include the studies by Johnson7 Patrick” and Schuh. l2 Today, Northeast Brazil has a population of approximately 30 million people living in an area (596,212 square miles) roughly equal in size to the state of Alaska, USA. About 60 per cent of the population live in the rural area; 40 per cent of the gross product of the region comes from the rural sector (ref. 10, pp. 29-32). The agricultural sector is characterised by low productivity and returns, dependence on subsistence and export crops, minijhdia and latifundia tenure conditions, and a high degree of uncertainty due to periodic droughts and excessive rainfall.

It is in this setting that the University of Arizona initiated activities under AID support in 1964. The contract, typical of similar agricultural institution building contracts, was directed towards improving the research, teaching, and extension programmes of the School of Agriculture at UFC. Progress under the contract has been summarised by Matlock’ with detailed accounts presented in various semi-annual reports. (In total, nineteen semi-annual reports were published during the lo-year operation of the contract. Copies of these reports are on file in the College of Agriculture, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.) Contract operations in Fortaleza terminated in December, 1973.

DEVELOPING CENTRES IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS: CEARA 119

In 1973, the University of Ceara had about 8,600 students enrolled in six Centres similar to US colleges. The Center of Agrarian Sciences (formerly the School of Agriculture) was established as a private school in 1918. After several reorganisa- tions and changes in administrative control, it is now composed of five departments, 98 faculty members (87 on full-time status), and about 600 undergraduate students. Agricultural Economics, as a department, dates from 1965. (The Agricultural Economics Department, until late 1973, had a rather odd mix of disciplines; five sections comprised the Department-( 1) agricultural economics, (2) extension, (3) home economics, (4) entomology, and (5) plant pathology. In mid-1973 the latter two groups were transferred to the Plant Science Department.) Although no undergraduate major in agricultural economics is given, the general agriculture curriculum of the Center includes courses in agricultural economics, extension, and rural sociology. (Two additional undergraduate curricula are currentlyoffered- home economics and fisheries.)

THE PROGRAMME

Graduate training in agricultural economics has its origins in a 1969 agreement between the University of Ceara, the Bank of Northeast Brazil, and the Ford Foundation. Funds were provided for (1) two special four-month courses in rural economics, (2) overseas graduate training of professors, and (3) acquisition of equipment and library material. The two specialisation courses were offered in 1970; a total of 32 students participated. These courses were designed to provide training beyond the undergraduate level in the traditional subject matter areas. The rationale behind these courses was that they would give the Department experience in offering graduate level training and would create a pool of potential candidates for the Master’s degree programme.

In 1970 a plan for the initiation of a Master’s degree in rural economics was developed by the Department. This plan was approved at the university level in early 1971. Selection of the first class of 15 students was made in June and classes were initiated in mid-August of 197 1. 3 It is important to recognise that in addition to being the first graduate degree programme in agricultural economics in Northeast Brazil, it was also the first MS degree programme at the Center. Consequently, considerable pioneering was necessary.

The first class of students represented the various states of the Northeast from Maranhao to Bahia. All but two were employed at the beginning of the course, a like number had participated in the specialisation courses; nine had general agriculture degrees (engenheiro agronomo) and six were economists. Thirteen of the 15 had been undergraduates at UFC. (One student dropped out early in the first semester leaving 14 who eventually completed their coursework.) Those employed were on leave from a wide variety of government and quasi-government

120 ROGER FOX

organisations (banks, state secretariats of agriculture and planning, other colleges, research organisations, etc.).

The curriculum for the first class contained the standard courses in theory, methods and applications offered by most US agricultural economics departments (see Table 1 for details). Flexibility in the curriculum was minimal. Thirty units

TABLE 1 MS DEGREE CURRICULUM IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

THE UNIVERSITY OF CEARA, BRAZIL

First Class August, 1971 to .Tune, 1972

Second Class March, 1973 to February, 1974

(Number of units in parentheses)

1st Semester Applied Statistics for Economists (3) Research Methodology (3) Microeconomic Thedry (3) Marketing of Agricultural Products (2) Brazilian Studies (1)

‘Summer Session’ Econometrics (2)

2nd Semester Macroeconomic Theory (3) Production Economics (3) Farm Management (3) Economic Development (2) Brazilian Studies (1)

1st Semester Microeconomic Theory (5) Macroeconomic Theory (5) Applied Statistics (6)

1st ‘Summer Session’ Agricultural Policy (2)

2nd Semester Production Economics (4) Research Methodology (3) Economic Development (3) Brazilian Studies (0)

2nd ‘Summer Session’ Marketing of Agricultural Products (2) Econometrics (2)

(in the US type degree the student has to obtain ‘passes’ from a, usually, wide selection of subjects, each ‘pass’ counts as a unit towards his degree) were required for the degree, of which six were given for a mandatory thesis. Non-credit classes were given in English and mathematics. Expected completion time for the degree was 18 months; in actuality it was almost two years before the first thesis was completed. (The latest information (July, 1974) indicates that seven theses from the first class are completed or nearing completion. To the author’s knowledge no degrees have been formally awarded, primarily because of lengthy delays in final typing and the additional requirement that an article or bulletin be published from the thesis.)

Faculty availability and support for the graduate programme is difficult to quantify. Counting faculty members in Brazil is even more elusive than in the US. It is my opinion that the published lists of faculty greatly overstated the ‘real’ support for the programme; the lists contained a number of individuals from other agencies as well as from other parts of Brazil (for example, see ref. 1). At the beginning of the course, the Department had four full-time Brazilian professors *plus myself qualified to teach in the graduate programme. All of the Brazilian professors had Master’s degrees; unfortunately, one of the four left the University

DEVELOPING CENTRES IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS: CEARA 121

before having an opportunity to teach or direct research in the graduate pro- gramme. The administrative load created by the course was carried by the Department Chairman, a member of the extension group. From outside the Department support was obtained from two other professors within the University and four ‘non-university’ collaborators. (‘Non-university’ is placed in quotes because the individuals in this group had some official ties with the University or were visiting professors from other universities. However, their principal employ- ment was outside the University and their contribution to the graduate programme was mainly through teaching.)

Using the same system of classification as Fienup (ref. 2, p. 18), the following distribution of thesis subjects in the first class is obtained: farm management and production economics, 6; marketing, 4; factor supply and allocation, 2; price and income policy, 0; resource economics and regional development, 1. (One student did not begin a thesis project and essentially dropped out of the programme after completing his coursework.) The high proportion of thesis subjects in the farm management and production economics areas is typical of most MS pro- grammes in Latin America; Fienup (ref. 2, p. 16) found that 42 per cent of the theses completed during the three-year period 1970-1972, fell in this category.

Since a policy to admit a new class every 18 months had been adopted, the second class began its programme in January, 1973. The initial six weeks were devoted to an intensive course in mathematics and an informal review of basic economic theory. Final selection was based on performance in the mathematics course. Fourteen students, all but two with general agriculture degrees, were admitted. (One student dropped out early in the first semester.) The same, broad geographic and job experience representation was maintained.

By early 1973, a number of changes had occurred that necessitated the reorgan- isation of the curriculum; principal among these was the initiation of Master’s degree programmes in Economics and Plant Science. The existence of these new programmes permitted the joint offering of three courses: microeconomics and macroeconomics jointly with Economics and statistics jointly with Plant Science. Additional changes in course offerings, unit weights, and emphasis were made (see Table 1). The number of units offered increased from 26 to 32; thesis credit was allowed to vary from three to six units. As in the case of the first term, the students tended to take all the courses offered.

Pressure on the full-time faculty increased considerably during 1973 as one professor left for Ph.D. training and the Department Chairman was promoted to Director of the Center. As a result, teaching by full-time Department members in the graduate programme was minimal.

PROBLEMS

How can the experience outlined above be made relevant for others initiating similar programmes? Recognising the risks of generalising from one experience,

122 ROGER FOX

specific problems of the programme will be discussed in the belief that many of these problems are common to all such programmes. Major difficulties arose relative to (1) background of students, (2) curriculum, (3) teaching, (4) research, and (5) funding. As I lived and worked with these problems, I was often reminded of their similarity to problems faced by US academic departments. The differences that existed tended to be more of degree and ordering. Approaches to and solutions for the problems were often different from what might be expected by my US experience. In considering these problems, it is important to remember that the Ceara programme was the first of its type in Northeast Brazil and also the first graduate degree offered at the Center of Agrarian Sciences. Obviously, problems were expected.

The problem of student background related primarily to their competence in economic theory, particularly macroeconomic concepts, and mathematics. Even those who had completed the specialisation course were deficient in macro- economics. The deficiencies in mathematics were adequately handled by the non- credit courses. The problem of inadequate economic theory background became crucial when the theory courses were offered jointly with the Economics Depart- ment. The economics MS students generally entered the programme with several undergraduate theory courses giving them a distinct advantage. Ad hoc and generally unsatisfactory solutions to this problem were invoked. Efforts to establish and maintain working relationships between the two departments were severely strained because of this problem.

Considerable attention has been given to the development and content of the curriculum. The whole question of course offerings and the logic of the changes made were probably not as rational and consistent as described. Considerable uncertainty, instability, and frenetic reaction characterised the curriculum situation. Problems arose due to lack of professors, inability to offer the electives presented in the course description’ (it was never intended or practical to offer all the courses), and uncertainty concerning the ‘best’ mix of courses to be offered. A number of students felt that they were not obtaining the knowledge and skills needed for their employment; frequently mentioned was the lack of course material on project planning and evaluation. Because of the limited course offerings, subjects listed as electives were in fact ‘required’ in order to fulfil minimum requirements. This situation will continue until more full-time faculty are available to handle small, seminar or readings classes and/or new courses for graduate credit are developed in complementary departments of the University.

The use of people from outside the Department and/or the University as teachers created special problems. Specific difficulties encountered were: cancellation of courses because the visiting professor could not come at the desired time; inter- ruption of class schedules because the professor had more pressing responsibilities; complaints by students because they did not have more contact with Departmental faculty; and undependability of ‘outside’ professors for thesis orientation. Some

DEVELOPING CENTRES IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS: CEARA 123

dependence on professors from outside the Department is unavoidable and probably beneficial; in the Ceara programme, macro- and microeconomic theory and statistics will normally be taught by other departments of the University. Nevertheless, the role of ‘outside’ professors must be carefully considered. The mere existence of a qualified professor in the community and his willingness to cooperate should be evaluated taking into account the disadvantages as well as the advantages. When manpower is scarce, selectivity is hard to defend; however, it should not be totally disregarded.

Problems concerning the planning and execution of graduate research projects centred on such things as professors’ lack of experience and a series of delays in preparing project proposals, conducting field work, and writing and revising theses. The problem of experience can be solved by bringing in experienced visiting professors with their attendant difficulties and/or waiting for the existing faculty to grow and mature. Hopefully, increased experience will help reduce some of the more serious delays. In the Ceara case, the reasons for delay were numerous and complicated. A few of the basic causes were: (1) a failure to force the candidates to prepare research plans within a predetermined period, (2) uncertainty about the availability of funds to support certain projects, (3) restrictions on the release and use of funds, (4) candidates returning to, or accepting, employment before com- pleting their projects, (5) a shortage of qualified typists, (6) professors ‘sitting’ on drafts of theses, and (7) computer breakdown and inefficiencies.

Funding of the programme was highly dependent upon the Bank of Northeast Brazil (BHB), Ford Foundation grants, and other contracts. Although this fact may not be considered a problem, it created attitudes that hampered the achievements of the programme. There was widespread feeling that the University wasn’t really supporting graduate study programmes. The need for new faculty members to support the programme was not recognised; the number of faculty members in agricultural economics actually decreased during my tenure. The system of evalua- tion and rewards for teaching and research did not recognise the extra work involved in teaching graduate courses nor the role of the professor as director of graduate research projects. Consequently, there was less than total commitment to the programme. Because of the funding situation there was a certain feeling of impermanence about the programme. One got the idea that if BNB or Ford with- drew, the programme would collapse. The continued and active presence of foreigners accentuated the dependency problem. I used the phrase ‘academic colonialism’ to represent some of our less desirable actions.

GENERAL ISSUES

What are the general issues and questions of importance raised by the Ceara experience? How can this experience help programme advisers and administrators in planning and initiating graduate programmes in developing countries?

124 ROGER FOX

The first issue concerns the existence or non-existence of an undergraduate programme in agricultural ecoqomics. In other words, can you build a graduate programme withqut first developing an undergraduate major? (Principal subject in a ‘mixed’ degree.) The Brazil experience indicates a positive answer. However, the lack of an undergraduate major has obvious implications for the curriculum and length of the programme. The necessity of an extra semester of coursework should be recognised. This semester would be used to give the necessary pre- requisites for the graduate courses. In the Ceara case, emphasis should be on economic theory (macro and micro) and mathematics with the possible introduction of basic concepts in statistics. Since some English textbooks and journal articles are used, a course on English grammar and technical vocabulary should be offered. The expected duration of the course should be two years (minimum) rather than 18 months.

A second and equally crucial issue concerns the number and training of the faculty at the beginning of the course. In order to begin and operate a programme with 15 to 20 students, a minimum of five, full-time fully qualified teachers is desirable. Depending on the other activities of the Department, such as under- graduate teaching, faculty leaving for training, administrative and consulting work, this number could be higher. At least one national with a Ph.D. and a strong commitment to the programme is necessary. The remaining faculty core should at a minimum have recognised MS degrees. These conditions did not exist at the beginning of the agricultural economics programme at Ceara. Some of the problems presented above could have been minimised or eliminated if a larger, better trained faculty existed. Initiation of a graduate course and the necessity of simultaneously training all faculty members to the Ph.D. level creates undesirable trade-offs. At Ceara, the newly developed MS programme in Plant Science began under con- ditions similar to those suggested. It would be interesting to compare the develop- ment of these programmes in a few years to see if the impact of the initial conditions can be isolated.

A related, third question concerns training of the faculty. Specifically, where should they be trained? My bias is that they should have at least one advanced degree outside of their home country, preferably in an English-speaking environ- ment. I feel that the advantages of overseas training outweigh the disadvantages. The important advantages are: (I) attainment of proficiency in English, the currently dominant language of the economics profession and the international business community; (2) exposure to and understanding of the workings of a modern university; (3) availability of specialised study programmes and a diverse faculty; (4) exposure to the activities, norms and functions of professional associa- tions such as the American Agriculture Economics Administration; (5) develop- ment of professional contacts that could lead to future exchange of ideas, and cooperative research; and (6) exposure to the organisation and operation of a developed society. Implications of this suggestion for developing and developed countries are clear: countries such as the US will continue to train large numbers

DEVELOPING CENTRES IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS : CEARA 125

of foreign students in their graduate programmes; countries with new graduate programmes will concentrate on developing well-established, high quality Master’s degree programmes. For Brazil, this means that the newly initiated Ph.D. pro- gramme in agricultural economics at the Federal University of Vicosa will develop very slowly. My personal feeling is that the Vicosa Ph.D. programme was started prematurely. Large scale foreign involvement in the development of Ph.D. pro- grammes in agricultural economics in Latin America seems unwarranted at this time. The offering of the Ph.D. degree should evolve from institutions that have well-established MS programmes and a stable, experienced faculty. These con- ditions do not currently exist in the nine Latin American institutions offering graduate programmes in agricultural economics.

The fourth point is more of a warning resulting from the Ceara experience. Avoid, if possible, the parallel development of economics and agricultural economics graduate programmes at the same university. In not following this advice, we find ourselves transferring to the developing countries one of the less desirable characteristics of the Land Grant College system. It seems more reason- able to strive for one strong, integrated department. If agricultural problems predominate in the region and if resources are available for research and teaching in agricultural economics, then establishing an integrated department with major emphasis on agricultural problems would be clearly better than creating two departments that resulted in fragmentation of resources and a base from which jealousy and rivalry could develop. (In reviewing an earlier draft of this paper, Elmer Menzie and John Sanders objected to some of the arguments in this paragraph. They feel that agricultural economists have a unique role to play in agricultural colleges and that they lose effectiveness if united with economists in another college. Furthermore, they note that since economics is a recognised profession in many developing countries, agricultural economics will be established and make a larger contribution only if it is integrated with the agricultural colleges. The Ceara experience indicates that this can also occur in the case of graduates from indigenous programmes. Again, awareness of the problem and efforts to alleviate it need to be considered by those involved.

In closing, I want to make a general plea in favour of institution building pro- grammes directed towards agricultural teaching, research, and extension. The importance of investing in the human resource and in developing ecologically adaptable and economically viable agricultural technology has been clearly demonstrated.5 Nevertheless, I sense a certain dissatisfaction with, and withdrawal from, the institution building concept, especially with AID. Rather than abandon- ing this approach we need to thoroughly study and evaluate the experiences of the last 10 to 15 years with the objective of improving our capacity to provide this type of assistance.)

The fifth issue concerns the importance and necessity of publishing the results of graduate student research. It is through publication that a large measure of the reputation and impact of the programme will be established. As indicated by

126 ROGER FOX

Fienup (ref. 2, pp. 14-16) the Latin American programmes have in general not had a good record of thesis completion and publication, the principal exceptions being the Federal University of Vicosa and, more recently, the Superior School of Agriculture in Sao Paulo. Publications from Vicosa are widely used in Brazil and have no doubt contributed to the stature of the programme. Some of the obstacles to thesis termination and publication were presented above. Cognisance of, and efforts to alleviate, these problems are important elements in the successful opera- tion of new graduate programmes.

In addition to publications, the performance of graduates ,weighs heavily in determining the overall reputation and impact of a graduate programme. Among other things, performance is influenced by the training received, the job situation (opportunities, rewards, and responsibilities), and the support after graduation received by the graduate. The degree granting institution controls the first item, has no influence over the second, and often ignores the third. In developing a new profession through graduate training, post-degree support of graduates can be extremely important. US institutions and agencies have recognised this fact in training foreign students. It is illustrated by the bright, well-trained, highly- motivated graduates who return home and in a few years or less become bitter, frustrated, and often unproductive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author is indebted to Elmer Menzie, Vernon Ruttan, John Sanders and Paulo Roberto da Silva for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

REFERENCES

1. Departamento de Economia Agricola, Centro de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidade Federal do Ceara, Curso de Pos-Graduacao em Economia Rural 1974175, Fortaleza, Ceara, 1973 (mimeo- graphed, 17 pages).

2. FIENUP, D. F., Graduate training and research in agricultural economics in Latin America- A review of the role and performance of eight graduate programs. Paper prepafed for a series of three workshops held February? March and April, 1974 to review US trammg and related research activities in the economics of agriculture in developing areas, sponsored by the International Committee of the American Agricultural Economics Association (mimeo- graphed, 22 pages).

3. Fox, R. & DE ALBUQUERQUE SOBRINHO, F., College of Agriculture helps Brazilian University lanx&yduate program, Progessive AgricuIture in Arizonti, 24 (January-February, 1972),

4. F&ADO, C., The economic growth of Brazil (trans. by Ricardo W. de Aguiar and Eric Charles Drysdale), Berkeley, University of California Press, 1968.

5. HAYAMI, Y. & RU~AN, V. W., Agricultural development: An international perspective, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971.

6. HIRSCHMAN, A, O., Journeys toward progress: Studies of economic policy-making in Latin America, New York, The Twentieth Century Fund, 1963.

DEVELOPING CENTRES IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS : CEARA 127

I. JOHNSON, A. W., Sharecroppers of the Sertao: Economics and dependence on a Brazilian plantation, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1971.

8. LEWIS, A. B., Training foreign graduate students in agricultural economics, Journal of Farm Economics, 49 (August, 1967), pp. 684704.

9. MATLOCK, W. G., College of Agriculture’s Brazil contract is seven years old, Progressive Agriculture in Arizona, 23 (July-August, 1971), pp. 14-16.

10. PATRICK, G. F., Desenuolvimento Agricola do Nordeste, Instituto de Planejamento Economico e Social, Colecao Relatorios de Pesquisa No. 11, Rio de Janeiro, 1972.

11. ROBOCK, S. H., Brazil’s developing northeast: A study of regional planning and foreign aid, Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution, 1963.

12. SCHUH, G. E., The agricultural development of Brazil, New York, Praeger Publishers, 1970.