On the role of rural development

Résumé du document

The evolution of the development agenda regarding rural areas over the last century, and especially during the last forty years, is striking. It has shifted focus from global modern economic growth through industrialization to a concern with the sustainability of the livelihoods of the poorest peasants. From a Marxist perspective, one could say that the "target group" of development are not the ones who can potentially progress, but are the ones who live in extreme poverty in the most deprived areas. The increasing contradictions of industry-based development in the Third World have first raised awareness of the important role that agriculture itself (as opposed to a mere support to industrialization) should play in the general framework of development.

Extraits

[...] A good example of this view is illustrated by Myrdal (1966). Far from denying that industry is a decisive motor for development, he however puts the case for a "plan designed to encompass effective agricultural planning and reform" 415). In the "transitional period" of industrialization, a strong "backwash" effect occurs on employment, because of the introduction of more capital intensive methods. The result is increased unemployment, and hence poverty (rural and urban) since population growth is stronger because of nascent industrialization ; either the young unemployed in the country go to the city and become urban poors, or they stay home and remain rural poors. [...]

[...] D. A. Rondinelli (1986), 'Administration of integrated rural development policies', in A. Kohli, The State and Development in the Third World (Guilford: PUP) 18. I. Scoones & J. Thompson (1994), Beyond Farmers First. Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice (Intermediate Technology Publications) 19. R. [...]

[...] As a reaction, "agricultural development" has been replaced by development, and the objective and means have shifted from a focus on promoting modern economic growth, to a 'sustainabilisation' of deprived livelihoods, which could only be achieved through a very inquisitorial knowledge of 'farmers'lives'. The attractiveness of this approach to development "helping poor people live better in their country” must not be misleading concerning its reactionary aspect ; it is a discourse that aims primarily at sustaining the livelihoods of a group of First World and Third World extension theorists and practitioners, and it has potentially disastrous effects on economic growth prospects. And therefore of the people whose poverty is today "alleviated". [...]

[...] Solow (1996), 'Intergenerational equity, yes but what about inequity today?', in UNDP (1996), Human Development Report 1996 Growth for Human Development ? (New-York: United Nations/OUP) 20. UNDP (2000), Overcoming Human Poverty UNDP Poverty Report 2000 (New- York: United Nations) 21. B. [...]

[...] It is therefore necessary to reverse the priorities: "If you wish for industrialization, prepare to develop agriculture." (1977, p 372). A byre, in contrast, argues, as a mere contradiction to the former (although pointing with right that rural elites often have a major influence on governments), that priority should be given to industry. It was classless because it did not look at the actual class struggles taking place within and across agriculture and industry, that were decisive in creating the conditions of economic development. [...]