[5-6 paragraphs]
On Sat, 18 Jun 1994 07:41:56 -0700, Doug Henwood quoted my argument:
>> This argument does not assume that the labor abundance will last
>> forever. Because the argument says that you should push technologies
>> that are appropriate, given the alternatives facing the agricultural
>> worker, it implies that labor saving technologies should be employed
>> when emigration is driven by urban opportunities.
Doug Henwood wrote,
> Appropriate to what? In all this talk of appropriateness, sensitivity to
> the grassroots, etc., I still see no answer to my fundamental question:
> as "progressive" economists and fellow travelers, do we aim to preserve
> traditional ways of life or do we wish to disrupt them humanely? Urban
> opportunities of what sort? In export zones? Small-scale industry?
> Large-scale industry? Presumably as progressive economists and fellow
> travelers we believe in planning development for the interest of the
> majority of the population, but I see little thinking about basic issues.
Appropriate, first and foremost, for the relative abundence of labor
per acre. This is a basic issue. Increasing productivity in agriculture
does not imply decreasing labor per acre. It can mean increasing labor per
acre, by opening up possibilities for productive use of labor. Getting
specific: on the island micro-state of Grenada, in the Eastern Caribbean,
the difficulties that small farmers have in reaching their different plots
of land on a regular basis limits what they can produce on their outlying
plots. Improved transportation and plot consolidation are two alternative
means of permitting the use of more productive techniques, and growing
higher value products. The standard which most farmers aspire to is a
compact Japanese pickup truck, which is beyond the means of a small farmer
(in several ways). A solution to this problem on Crete is a cart with a
hitch for a roto-tiller which has a drive wheel that may be fitted as a
roto-tiller attachment. On a pair-wise comparison, this mechanical donkey
cart is more appropriate than the small pick-up truck, because its use is
more consistent with the relative abundence of labor per acre than a truck.
IMFO, these issues on agricultural development are more basic than the
issues of how to industrialize.
> Input from the grassroots, of course. But how much? How much do the
> grassroots know about investment levels or metallurgy? By asking the
> question am I revealing myself as hopelessly patronizing and colonialist?
Turn the question around. What difference does it make what the elites
"know" about investment levels if it does not translate into individual
successes at the grassroots? This is part of Johnson's small market town
argument: it is in a small market town which people from the rural villages
visit on a weekly basis that high quality contact between agricultural
producers and agricultural extension specialists can take place. If the
goals pursued are developed in collaboration with the producers, then
producers are more active in demanding technical advice.
But colonialist? No: Colonialists often think of it in these terms,
but these are the same type of questions urban elites are constantly asking
about their own "backward villagers."
Virtually,
Bruce McFarling, Pellissippi State
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (through July 1)
