VALSEQUILLO DE GRAN CANARIA
CIRUGIA POLO POSTERIOR RETINA
Originally, the RuralStruc program had three specifi c objectives: (1) to con- tribute to the analytical knowledge base about structural changes related to lib- eralization and economic integration, and the consequences of these changes on developing countries’ agriculture and their rural economies (box 1.3); (2) to feed and improve the international and national debates by promoting and reconnecting these issues; and (3) to provide perspectives for policy making.
cities or other countries. Often two or more paths operate simultaneously, and the complementary effects of farm and nonfarm activities can be strong. But although rural households engage in farming, labor, and migration, one of these activities usu- ally dominates as a source of income.
Box Table 1.2.1 Characteristics of the WDR08’s Three Worlds of Agriculture
Ag. based Transforming Urbanized
Rural population (millions), 2005 417 2,220 255
Rural population (%), 2005 68 63 26
GDP per capita (2000 US$), 2005 379 1,068 3,489
Agriculture in GDP (%), 2005 29 13 6
Annual Ag. GDP growth (%), 1993–2005 4.0 2.9 2.2
Annual Non-Ag. GDP growth (%), 1993–2005 3.5 7.0 2.7
Rural poverty rate (%), 2002 51 28 13
Source: World Bank 2007, p. 31–33.
The third goal relied directly on the program’s design and the operationaliza- tion of its research results, while the fi rst and second goals were more subjective. They implied a clear positioning, and the program chose to place the discussion of agriculture and rural change into the context of the structural transforma- tion framework—to reconnect the development debate to global issues and avoid discussions trapped in sectoral approaches.
The structural transformation of economies and societies is a core issue in development studies. Historical records and statistical evidence8 show a pro-
gressive shift from agriculture (the original primary activity of every sedentary population), to industry (the secondary activities), and then to services (the tertiary activities). The well-known underlying dynamic of this structural trans- formation—the economic transition from one confi guration to the next—is productivity gains in agriculture, based on innovation that fosters technical change and allows labor and capital transfers toward other economic activities.
B O X 1 . 3
Liberalization or Globalization?
In the early defi nition of the RuralStruc program, liberalization was understood in a broad sense as a global process of change, begun in the early 1980s, that included trade and domestic reform, state withdrawal from economic activities, privatization, and, in many developing countries, the reform of the state through decentralization.
The aim of the RuralStruc program was to focus on all the structural dimensions of this new context, which explains the choice of a title for the program. However, although the program adopted this broad defi nition of liberalization, the offi cial posi- tioning of the program’s name quickly appeared inadequate. First, because the under- standing of its objectives was often restricted to the policy package dimension of the reform process associated with liberalization, the program was often perceived as a cri- tique of the reforms, which was not its purpose. Second, this misinterpretation implic- itly limited the understanding of the scope of the processes at play.
After discussions with both the donor community and the national partners, it appears that it would have been clearer to use “globalization” rather than “liberaliza- tion” in the program’s name. Although the use of “globalization” might suggest an excessive scope, the context to which the program refers clearly corresponds with the new international regime that emerged in the early 1980s and its consequences for agriculture, rural economies, and the process of economic transition as a whole. This new regime is characterized by new roles for the state and private actors, as well as by a broad and deep movement toward integration of the world economy.
The RuralStruc program has progressively adopted this broader positioning for the presentation of its results. “Globalization and Structural Change in Rural Economies” has been used as a title for the Phase 2 national reports and policy briefs, and the title of this book clearly refers to globalization.
This process is accompanied by progressive spatial restructuring from scattered activities (typically agriculture) to more concentrated ones (typically indus- try), with migration of labor and people from rural areas to cities. Alongside this process of growing urbanization, overall economic transformation creates higher incomes and an increase in wealth, which translate into improved living conditions. This, in turn, along with medical progress, initiates a demographic transition: the progressive reduction of mortality and birth rates, the difference between which explains population growth dynamics.
Although this process of global structural transformation occurs at different paces and can follow various paths, its basic pattern has been observed through- out the world. It started with the closely related agricultural and industrial revo- lutions of Western Europe at the end of the 18th century, and continued in European offshoots (mainly the United States), other European regions, the majority of Latin America, and various parts of Asia.
Reference to this process has forged the classical development paradigm that underlies development economics.9 Currently, one of the main challenges is the
acceleration of the pace of change related to globalization and, thus, the grow- ing asymmetries among regions of the world characterized by their different stages in this process of structural transformation.
This conceptual positioning strongly shaped the rationale of the RuralStruc program and its hypotheses. While the trade liberalization debate focused on expected gains from the liberalization process and their consequences for growth and poverty,10 the program’s objective was to reengage in the debate on
economic transition within globalization and to elaborate on possible struc- tural diffi culties rather than just on transitional problems.11 RuralStruc aimed
to reconnect the discussion of agriculture with some challenging issues, such as the increasing productivity gaps among countries, lagging economic diversifi ca- tion, and the demographic challenges faced by several regions. These issues are recurring blind spots in the international debate, but they are critical for the structural transformation of developing countries.
Three hypotheses were advanced to structure the research process with regard to the debates on agriculture, food markets, and rural diversifi cation (box 1.4). The fi rst hypothesis (H1) refers to the global restructuring of agri- food markets and the increasing asymmetry in international competition. It states that these processes lead to the development of increasing differentiation among farm structures and among marketing, processing, and retailing struc- tures. This hypothesis raises several questions: What is the balance between the potential integration of farmers in modern emerging value chains and their possible exclusion? What are the scope, speeds, and characteristics of these pro- cesses? Do they induce a segmentation dynamic with concentration, marginal- ization, and, sometimes, exclusion within and from the farm sector, leading to the emergence or consolidation of multiple-track agriculture?
The second hypothesis (H2) relates to the existing processes of adaptation among rural households as a response to the many changing factors in agricul- ture and their impact on farm viability. Rural households engage in new con- fi gurations of activities and income systems characterized by the changing role of agriculture and the growing importance of off-farm activities and transfers (private transfers related to migration and, possibly, public transfers linked to specifi c support systems). The following questions are relevant to this hypoth- esis: What are the characteristics of these new confi gurations? How do they differ among countries? Are these dynamics new or do they follow the historical paths of structural transformation? How do they reshape the characteristics of rural areas and of rural-urban links? Are they effective approaches to sustain- ability in rural livelihoods?
The differentiation dynamics in agriculture and the possible diffi culties of rural households’ adaptation (in the absence of effective alternative activi- ties and incomes) could create transition impasses in the process of structural transformation. This is the third hypothesis (H3), which refers primarily to the characteristics of what the WDR08 called “agriculture-based countries.” In these countries, the weight of agriculture in employment and activity structures, the strong urbanization process without signifi cant industrialization or job cre- ation, limited economic diversifi cation in a context of growing international competition, and heavy demographic pressure create a unique challenge for development. Will some countries face impasses in escaping poverty owing to a lack of alternatives (Kydd 2002) and limited migration opportunities? What
B O X 1 . 4
The RuralStruc Program’s Three Hypotheses
H1: The global restructuring of
agrifood markets reinforces a process of differentiation and segmentation
within agricultural economies.
H2: Farm households are
adapting to the new context by adopting composite strategies of
activities and income that are reshaping rural economies.
H3: Marginalization trends introduced by these processes lead to
risks of transition dead ends linked to the relative scarcity of alternative activities and sources of employment.
are the potential social, economic, and political consequences of such dead ends in the economic transition?