Gente que sufre, instituciones que no funcionan Repercusiones de las situaciones de pobreza

Origins and Diffusion Process

The diffusion-of-innovations paradigm originated in the early 1900s, based on the ideas of the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde and other European anthropologists, known as British and German-Austrian diffusionists. The rural sociology research tradition was the most influential and its studies were inspired and applied to the work of the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture in the USA (Rogers, 1983). The diffusionist approach was consolidated in the early 1960s, when extension services spread, especially in the developing

countries. Its main contributors were the American sociologists Everett Rogers and Herbert Lionberger, and the Dutch sociologist van den Ban (Roling, 1988).

Diffusion is defined as the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels among the members of a social system (Rogers, 1983). It is based on the industrial 'research, development and diffusion' model of technology generation, and is seen as a three-stage process:

(a) needs identification, (b) development of a solution, and (c) diffusion (Ban et al, 1988, p . 26). The definition of farmers' problems and needs is considered the domain of experts, scientists and policy- makers. Innovations are created mainly to improve economic efficiency with no consideration of the different farming systems and the specific situations of producers. It aims at being economically competitive and suitable for a public to consume. The diffusion process relies on the joint action of extension and experimental stations

(Rogers, 1983; Ban et al, 1988).

The main goal of the diffusionist approach is the 'a doption-of-innovations', whose roots lie in theories of learning and decision-making. It employs the learning approach based on the ideas of the psychologist B. F. Skinner (themselves based on Edward L. Thorndike's Law of Effect), that people act to achieve pleasure and avoid pain (Skinner, 1974).

It is also inspired by Pavlov's notion of the conditioned reflex, and his experiments with animals which demonstrated that it is possible to condition needs and wishes by means of reinforcement. It consists of a process of trial and error, which does not necessarily induce insight or conscious reflection (Mackenzie, 1977).

The decision-making process focuses solely on the adoption process that was first observed by Ryan and Gross (1943) in the hybrid corn experiment. It is described by Rogers, 1962, 1983, as a five-stage process, which producers should go through: (1) awareness, (2) interest or persuasion,

(3) evaluation, (4) trial, and (5) adoption. It considers the concept of 'innovativeness', defined as the degree to which an individual is relatively early in adopting new ideas compared with others in his or her social group or community.

Individuals are classified according to their innovativeness or willingness to innovate (Rogers, 1983). An adoption curve classifies adopters according to their innovativeness as

'innovators', 'early adopters' and 'laggards' or 'late adopters' was established. It focuses on socio-economic characteristics such as level of education, social status, size of farm, 'cosmo p o l i t a i n n e s s ', contact with extension and mass media exposure basically as elements that can affect adoption. It also assumes that late adopters are under the strong influence of e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s (Rogers, 1962, 1983; Ban et al, 1988).

The Trickle-Down Effect

The diffusion process employs the two-step-flow of communication approach. It assumes that well-informed farmers play a key role in informing others and are seen as 'active adopters' or 'rejectors' who influence others to follow their lead (Rogers, 1962). It uses opinion leaders to inform, teach, organize and persuade farmers to adopt new ideas. Their personal and social characteristics are considered important in order to ensure effective communication and the persuasion of their followers. It is expected to make adoptions trickle-down

from innovators to laggards thus completing the diffusion process. According to this theory, in their groups, leaders tend to be better-off in relation to the average members. In addition, effective leaders are expected to be progressive, socially well-articulated and willing to help the community to improve their living conditions. Leaders are appointed by all or only a few members of their groups and can also be self­ designated (Seville, 1965; Rogers, 1962, 1983; Roling, 1988).

Diffusion and Development

The diffusionist approach was inspired by the modernization paradigm and is based on the ideas of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber (Rogers, 1983; Webster, 1990). It aims at achieving rapid economic growth through urban-based and capital-intensive industrialization and the free market. Agriculture is not seen as being intrinsically important and the countryside is seen as a reserve army of labour for the industrial sector. Priority is given to urban populations through promoting favourable prices of basic foodstuff thus, reducing rural incomes (Hall, 1986; Hulme et al, 1990). Decisions concerned with the development of the countryside are centralised in urban areas. The causes of underdevelopment are seen mainly to be at local level and in the case of agriculture, at farm production level (Hulme et al, 1990; Webster, 1990).

In addition, this approach suggests that traditional societies possess no ability to progress by themselves and that intervention from outside is necessary. It idealises a model of society based on individual performance, merits personal autonomy in decision-making and relies on the capacity of

m o d e m science. Traditional values are seen as obstacles to the introduction of a m o d e m entrepreneurial ethic. In particular, diffusionist theory assumes that poorer farmers are naturally conservative, fatalistic and resistant to change (Hall, 1986). It advocates that they should change from traditional to modern, which requires them to undergo a change in their personality, values and attitudes. They should also acquire a need for personal achievement, which would favour adoption of new ideas and enable them to progress economically (Hulme et al, 1990).

During the 1950s and 1960s, this approach proliferated in the developing countries, supported by the developed economies of the west, with the aim of accelerating development. Only in the 1960s was it recognized that small and poor farmers were efficient economically, rational and used resources wisely. They were still required to change however, since it was assumed that they could progress if technology and price incentives were provided. It was a key idea behind the so- called "green revolution", which aimed at promoting agricultural production and incomes through the adoption of scale-neutral technologies such as improved seeds and chemical fertilizers (Schultz, 1964) .

The diffusionist approach overlooked the differences among distinct agricultural systems, needs and interests of the various types of farmers, structural constraints, such as insufficient land, and provided no controls for policy implementation. In the early 1970s, despite achieving macro- economic growth, it became evident that the modernization para d i g m had failed to accomplish development in the broader sense. Poverty, inequity, landlessness and the rural-urban

m igration flow increased as never before, and large landowners m onopolized inputs and benefits. The results of economic development tended to be concentrated within urban upper and middle income groups, the rural élite of traditional landowners and newer commercial farmers. The promise of an automatic

'trickle-down' of benefits to poorer populations was hampered. Among other reactions, these results drew policy-makers' attention to the majority which had been largely excluded from the modernization process and to the unequal distribution of the results of economic progress (Griffin, 1974, 1976; Lipton, 1977; Pearse, 1980; Chambers, 1981)