3.1 Introduction: Samoan Culture: Constraint or Motivation?
Chapter 2 examined the broad theoretical context of this thesis, including the role ascribed to traditional cultures by modernisation theory, namely that culture is a constraint to development. This chapter examines how theories of development, particularly modernisation, have influenced the interpretation of Samoan culture as a constraint to development in Samoa, and how these interpretations have, in turn, influenced the direction of development, particularly in agriculture.
This chapter shows how such interpretations, with their origins in modernisation theory, have, over time, taken on a life of their own and become accepted wisdom. It is suggested that this has been established and perpetuated by processes of selective gathering of infonnation from secondary sources, requoting of earlier work and a lack of empirical research.
This accepted wisdom, then, has affected, and been disseminated in, agricultural policy recommendations and implementation (emphasising government commercial agriculture). Examples are given of how these same assumptions and interpretations of Samoan culture are found in project documents and other documents specifically relating to cattle in Samoa, in which Samoan culture receives a significant portion of blame for the failure of cattle projects.
Finally this chapter identifies the four key assumptions about Samoan culture which this thesis sets out to test. As a counterfoil, an emerging antithesis with more recent repudiations of the conventional assumptions about Samoan culture is then introduced.
3.2 Culture as Constraint: Interpretations of the Role of Samoan Culture in Development
For more than a century much has been written about the role of Samoan culture in the development of Samoa. What has been written has then been extensively quoted and requoted in support of more recent analyses and echoed in project documents and surveys, in preference to empirical research.
The earliest to record his opinion about the link between Samoan culture and development was Turner ( 1 884):
"This communistic system is a sad hindrance to the industrious, and eats like a canker-worm at the roots of individual and national progress. No matter how hard a young man may be disposed to work, he cannot keep his earnings: all soon passes out of his hands into the common circulating currency of the clan to which all have a latent right" (Turner, 1 884: 1 60)
In 1 930 Riroa wrote:
"the Samoans are ... more conservative than other branches of their race and their satisfaction with themselves and their own institutions makes them less inclined to accept the changes that foreign governments consider would be of benefit to them" (Hiroa, 1 930:5)
The work of Farrell and Ward in 1 962 is definitive and has been relied upon by later writers (for example Asian Development Bank, 1 985a; Ronnas, 1 993). They described the resistance of Samoan culture to change. For example:
"Tradition dies hard in Samoa. The many aspects of the Samoan way of life are vigorously and steadfastly protected. Nowhere else in the Pacific is innovation so resolutely resisted, and in few other territories is the cult of custom so deeply revered '" skill and diligence on the land are accorded little recognition, and husbandry is detrimentally affected by time-consuming community activity" (Farrell and Ward, 1 962:232-233)
and:
"Samoans [were) resolutely confirmed in their attitude of resistance to change" (Farrell and Ward, 1 962: 1 95)
These authors were not specific as to which Samoans were resistant to what change, but rather were making sweeping generalisations. Samoans were characterised as resistant to change and the culture as a 'hindrance' and 'detrimental'. It was assumed that change would be good for Samoans, and that this was to be in the form of changes to the culture or a complete break from the culture:
"economic wellbeing ... can be achieved mainly by a change in custom and tradition" (Farrell and Ward: 1962:236)
Thus while Samoans were considered resistant to change, change was considered necessary. This line of thinking was consistent with modernisation theory, although the authors may not have been explicitly aware of this. Rather it was simply generally accepted wisdom in the historical context of the early 1 960s. On the one hand observers expected no change because culture was thought to be resistant to change but, on the other hand, were hoping to find the changes prescribed as necessary for modernisation. So when change was observed it could not be attributed to the Samoans themselves but to the influence of modernisation. This was expected to be seen in the younger generation who would make the break with tradition. Farrell and Ward say, for example:
"A revolution in Samoan agriculture could be brought about that would raise the general standard of living and have ramifications in all sectors of the economy. But ... to achieve such ends would require something in the nature of a social revolution '" It is possible that the seeds of a socio-economic revolution are being sown ... the question becomes one of how long tradition . . . can resist growing restlessness and des ire for improvements on the part o f the younger generation" (Farrell and Ward, 1 962:236, 237)
In this article Farrell and Ward's argument involved a contradiction, namely culture was resistant to change but change was occurring. This contradiction perhaps arose because the
concept of modernisation also stressed both the conservatism of traditional cultures and the need for radical social change. Farrell and Ward attributed change to Western influences over a long period of time and identified it as change away from Samoan culture, towards Westernisation and Western attitudes and behaviours. This was consistent with modernisation theory. Other authors also observed that social changes were occurring. In
1 962 Pirie and Barrett showed the contradictions present when they wrote:
" [Samoans] have always stubbornly remained themselves . . , Conservatism has always been a feature of Samoan culture and the people are apt to make strenuous resistance to change" (Pirie and Barrett: 1 962:63,64)
But they continued:
"the solid cultural front which Samoans felt it necessary to present to the alien world has weakened ... [There are] spectacular signs of an increasing alignment with European attitudes to political, economic and social processes" (Pirie and Barrett, 1 962:64,65)
Pirie and Barrett again see things from a modernisation perspective, even if they did not openly draw on such theory. Progress was towards the Western model. They talked about 'progressive attitudes' and 'responding to new opportunities'. The changes they observed were particularly in the direction towards cash cropping, and the dissatisfaction felt by the younger generation, seen principally by very high emigration, whether to other villages, Apia or overseas. They related emigration to dissatisfaction with traditional Samoan culture by Samoans themselves.
They also saw the increasing tendency for younger untitled men to be more independent in the villages, clearing and farming land for themselves, and keeping more of the money they earned for themselves as a positive indicator. It is perhaps worth noting, however, that the younger generation of the 1 960s are now the older generation of the 1 990s. Changes have occurred over this time, but not necessarily as predicted in terms of a complete break with tradition. l
The ambivalence seen in these writers is also found by comparing two other authors who wrote about Samoan culture nearly a decade later. Piu ( 1 970) and Lockwood ( 1 97 1 ) wrote at almost the same time, influenced by the same intellectual context. They observed the same Samoan culture but managed to gain entirely different insights and come to quite different conclusions.
Based on his own fieldwork, Lockwood ( 1 97 1 ) concluded:
"All the evidence presented so far points In one direction: Samoans are generally content with the life they lead. They have little interest in the outside world which intrudes on them in the form of the market sector. They likewise have little evident concern for the future, little interest in productive investment, little interest to 'develop'" (Lockwood, 1 97 1 :206)
Lockwood was critical of Samoans' 'fatalism' and a system of giving and sharing which removed incentives to work or accumulate material wealth (both important ingredients of modernisation) . He observed that:
"There is little evidence to suggest that these attitudes towards economic development are changing" (Lockwood, 197 1 :210)
He predicted, l ike Pirie and Barrett ( 1 962), that rapid popUlation increase would lead to declining levels of living and increased shortages and hardships.
Pitt ( 1 970) wrote at the same time as Lockwood. He argued, however, that economic development was possible within the traditional economy:
"There has been, at least in the twentieth century, a consistent effort by Samoans to raise their own standards of living (p29) ... This demand for capital goods has a solid base in fa 'aSamoa values (p44) . . . There are, however, restrictions on capital demand mainly ... because of the weak development of opportunities or facilities provided by the Europeans (p47) '" most Europeans believe that indigenous capital formation is impossible or very unlikely in the Samoan situation (p45)" (Pitt, 1 970)
In 1 962, Farrell and Ward had written:
"It may be argued that a greatly increased cash income would bestow doubtful benefits on a villager with few facilities for saving and with limited wants" (FarreIl and Ward, 1 962:237)
Despite Pitt's rebuttal in 1 970, another decade later, Ward and Proctor, in an Asian Development Bank survey of agriculture in the Pacific, wrote of Samoa:
"In considering the question of aspiration, it is worth noting that the social structure of Western Samoan society has remained stronger and more intact than any other in Polynesia. It may be that the strength and conservatism of this social system has resulted in aspiration levels rising more slowly in Western Samoa ... If this were the case, the existence of the lower aspiration levels would also reinforce the argument that '" much of the society has reached some form of temporary (perhaps semi-permanent) plateau of satisfaction . . . The social and motivational constraints now in operation appear unlikely to be weakened ... without some fairly substantial change in the organization of production" (Ward and Proctor, 1 980:400)
This argument, which echoed Lockwood, was suggested as a hypothesis to explain the 'poor performance of the agricultural sector'. Low productivity was blamed on low aspirations without any apparent field research to back it up. The idea of limited aspirations and the linkage that was made to subsistence affluence were taken up in later publications including the Asian Development Bank ( 1 985b:22) where what was a hypothesis had become accepted wisdom and it was given to account, at least in part, for lack of growth in agricultural production. Other competing hypotheses offer alternative explanations. Two of these include the influence of migration, resulting in shortages of agricultural labour (Shankman, 1 976), and the MIRAB effect (Bertram and Watters, 1 984, 1 985). O'Meara ( 1 983), in his PhD thesis, based on extensive fieldwork, also offered an explanation in terms of low market prices, especially when compared to other sources of income, and restricted market access for agricultural products. O'Meara also showed that Samoans have neither low aspirations nor have they reached a plateau of satisfaction.
While not denying that Samoans do enjoy, compared with other developing countries, a level of living that might be termed 'subsistence affluence' (Fisk, 1 962) or 'subsistence plenty', Fairbairn ( 1 985) was concerned at the effect of the use of this term on official development policy:
"the notion of subsistence plenty tends to arouse a romantic picture of people living in a state of bliss and harmonious adaptation to their environment. Images of this kind could adversely influence official policy . . . it has tended to give rise to a pessimistic view in respect of the ability of subsistence units to promote the economic development of the rural sector by exercising initiative and maximising pecuniary gains ... A firm empirical foundation for this view is however, lacking" (Fairbairn, 1 985:335)
Ward and Proctor, however, used their own hypothesis to dismiss subsistence agriculture and recommend commercial plantation agriculture:
"the subsistence based mixed subsistence-cash mode of production ... is an unsuitable vehicle for sustained growth in production and incomes ... Little progress is likely to be seen in the agricultural sector until fully commercial operations, generally on a somewhat larger scale, begin to replace the socio commercial operations now conducted by the vast majority of smallholders" (Ward and Proctor, 1 980:402)
This recommendation had enormous implications for the direction of development planning and aid flows in agriculture generally and in cattle farming in particular. Aid was directed into the government-controlled WESTEC plantations, which grazed cattle under coconuts.2 This was also consistent with modernisation theory at the time which held that aid should be directed towards governments as the private sector was not strong enough yet to respond effectively. Today this is increasingly being replaced by aid directed towards privatisation and the private sector.
Thus the importance of beliefs about the role of culture, especially as an obstacle to development, should not be underestimated in that they can impact on whole development
directions. Subsistence agriculture was neglected in this path to development, and was therefore less likely to succeed, providing further evidence of its unsuitability.
It is, however, ironic that after huge amounts of aid money were poured into WESTEC over several decades, it was always accused of inefficiency and had to be rescued from debt (FAO, 1 990:8). By 1 994 it threatened to collapse completely and was in a state of limbo awaiting government decisions whether to privatise it or not. Since then some WESTEC land has been sold to settlers around Apia and other activities curtailed (Fleming and Hardaker, 1 995 :69). By 1 997 WESTEC's cattle farming activities had ceased in Savai'i and been severely curtailed in Upolu. At the same time smallholders continued to quietly farm cattle, proving themselves to be far more durable in the long run than Ward and Proctor's recommendation. The recommendation to move to large scale commercial farming came, was implemented and failed, while smallholders carried on. Ironically, the near collapse of WESTEC has, more recently, forced aid suppliers to rediscover smallholders as potential aid recipients.
Once it was accepted earlier, however, that Samoan rural society was resistant to change, frustrating planners and development agencies, it became an assumption that then went unchallenged and, furthennore, became the subject of academic explanations which can be seen as being influenced by the world view of modernisation theory.
The first was the theory of subsistence affluence and limited wants. Although its origins can be traced to the classic work of Chayanov (Kerblay, 1 97 1 ; Harrison, 1 982), in the Pacific it dates to the work of Fisk in Papua New Guinea (Fisk, 1 962, 1 964), which Lockwood ( 1 97 1) sought to test in Samoa in his fieldwork. Indeed Lockwood did find that 'by and large' the theory of subsistence affluence was applicable to Western Samoa. This theory essentially argues that in a subsistence economy all production is either consumed by the producers (such as an extended family) or wasted. As there is a limited capacity to consume, there is no incentive to produce more than can be consumed. Production is limited by the capacity to consume rather than the capacity to produce and, over time, the levels of production become cultural norms.
In S amoa the subsistence and monetary economies are now closely integrated. Fisk's argument was that when the subsistence economy begins to interact with the monetary
economy the same production habits will continue. The desire to produce for the market will depend on the desire to consume goods that cannot be produced by the household. This will depend on cultural and other factors. Fisk argued the result was a tendency towards target earning. That is, production for the market in order to be able to purchase a specific item or earn a specific amount of cash, followed by withdrawal from the market. One result is a negative production response to increased prices for subsistence goods, namely if farmers are paid more, they reach their target faster but produce less to do so.
It can be observed that Samoans do target earn, as many other people do also, in that their cash income, if it comes in a lump sum such as occurs when a cattle beast is sold, may be spent on larger items rather than daily subsistence requirements. However, it does not necessarily follow that they respond negatively to price increases for their crops. Once one target is met, it is quickly replaced by another target. Furthermore targets and constant incomes can co-exist where there is a need for regular income alongside big target expenses. While Samoans may enjoy a level of subsistence affluence, it does not follow that, as a result, they have limited wants.
The theory of subsistence affluence is seen in the writing by Lockwood ( 1 97 1 ) and Ward and Proctor ( 1 980). However it was strongly refuted by Pitt ( 1 970) and by O'Meara ( 1990) who argued that Samoans are actually very materialistic and respond positively to price incentives. The 1 985 Asian Development Bank Western Samoa Agriculture Sector Study (ADB, 1 985a,b) also found that farmers were well aware of price movements for their products and responded positively to price increases. This is now the accepted view. Ronnas concluded that:
"the theory of target earning and limited wants associated with subsistence affluence can probably be discarded as largely irrelevant in the Samoan context ... the cultural isolation vis-a-vis the 'modem' society implicit in the theory of subsistence affluence is not true of Samoa" (Ronnas, 1 993:345).
Nevertheless, basic subsistence production can be secured with relatively low labour inputs. Hence, time is available for other activities including ceremonies such as fa 'alavelave. Fa 'alavelave are an integral part of the subsistence economy and the level of subsistence affluence in Samoa allows fa 'alavelave to flourish.
The second explanation for 'poor development performance' was ja 'aSamoa (Samoan culture) itself which was seen as a major obstacle to economic growth. "According to this theory, the socio-cultural milieu in rural Samoa is fundamentally inimical to entrepreneurial development and economic growth" (Ronmls, 1993:346). A number of observers, such as Farrell and Ward ( 1 962), Ala'ilima and Ala'ilima ( 1 964), Lockwood ( 1 97 1 ) and Fairbairn ( 1 985), identified the different components of Samoan culture which acted as disincentives to increasing production.
These were first, the matai system, associated property rights and control over production factors (including land tenure) ; second, lack of control over the fruits of production by the producers which acted as a disincentive to production; third, the way status is ascribed rather than determined by wealth or material advancement; fourth, the communal pattern of life which emphasises sharing, gift giving and reciprocity (Ronnas, 1 993:347-348) and fifth, the importance of equality and social balance (Ala'ilima and Ala'ilima, 1 964).
The Asian Development Bank Agriculture Sector Study ( 1 985a) summarised the prevailing view in a nutshell:
"There is a conventional view that ja 'aSamoa institutions and behaviour are responsible for agricultural stagnation. Fa 'aSamoa has been interpreted as the Samoan's satisfaction with things as they are and that if they wanted to they could change the system. As most agricultural production takes place at the village level, this lack of motivation poses the most serious of all constraints to the future development of agriculture and to the economic growth of the