Analysis of factors associated with agricultural production at minifundio level in the oriente de Antioquia, Colombia







Texto completo

(1)•. .. • MALYSIS OF FACTO,<S ASSOCIATED '11TH AGRICULTURAL. r¡. PRODUCTIot! /\1 tHNIFU'íDrO LEVE.L. TRE ORIEnTE DE ANTIOQUIA, COLC'lBIA. •. A thesis submitted te the Graduate School Di the University Di Wisconsin in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor oi Philosophy. BY Jaime Isaza-RestreDO. Degree to be. a~arded:. January 19,_______. June 19,_____. August 19,_7'+_ _. -. •. •. • Da-r:e: of EX8.11lination.

(2) •. .. Analvsis of Factors l\ssociatE'j wíth. A~ricultu!"'al. Production at I'bifundio Leve1 in the Oriente de Antioquia, Colombia Jain~. Isaza-Restreno. Under the Supervision of Professor James A. Duncan. In a previous study conducted in Colomhia by Everett M. Rop,ers (Modernization Among Peasants: The Impact of Comnunications, 1969), it is sugrested that peasant traditionalism must be overcome in order to reach hip,her leve1s of agricultura1 production.. Accor·d-. íng to Rogers, adoption and innovativeness are conseauences of modernization.. Thís point of view has heen ouestioned hy James E.. Grunig (Communication and the Economic Decision-making Process of. •. •. Colombian Peasants, 1971), who argues that peasants are facing resource limitations, and that a structural change must take place before an', technica1 information hecomes relevant to the peasants. According to Grunig, the Dresence of resources wi11 lead to entrepreneurship, or a high ability on the part of the peasants to handle resources, all of which will improve productíon records.. •. The way in which these two studies have been conducted makes it questionable to attribute Droduction increases to either modernization or entreDreneurship.. Comnarisons have be en made. •. between grouDs with differences in types or agriculture, ethnic. ". hackgrounds, access to means of nroduction and social structure. In the case of Ro"el's, for instance, it cannot he deterl!1ined.

(3) • • whether the more modern groups produce more because thev are ». •. modern or because they have access to better resources; in the mean time it cannot be determined I<hether these grouns are more modern because of the impact of communication methods, or because. >. •. they have access to resources allowing them to be modern, i.e., to have education, to travel more, to risk innovations, etc. In the case of Grunig, it cannot be determined I<hether the entrenreneurs are adent at nroblem solving in production behavior since these groups belong to the Agrarian Reform Program and the Coffee Diversification Fund, I<here they are told I<hat to do, and markets are regulated, in which case decision opportunities are not of consideration.. en. the other hand, groups classified as. non-entrepreneurs rate the highest in total production, in which case the decision ability is seeminglv not so imoortant.. •. •. In the present study production is related to resources and to most of the modernization and entrepreneurship variables used by Rogers and Grunig in their studies.. •. determine the relative limitation that production procesS at minifundio. traditionalis~. has in the. level as comoared to limitations. imposed by lacK of basic resources.. •. The objective is to. The general hypothesis is. that the lack of resources, and not traditionalism, is the real limitation faced by peasants in their production efforts. The study Has made in the Oriente de Antioquia, Colombia, where Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario has been a rural development project since 1971.. carryin~. out. A samp1e of 180 peasants.

(4) •. • was. •. chosen, and statistical comparisons of groups with access to. credit and technical assistance, and groups without these, were. • •. made.. Also, sixteen more comparisons were made by grouping the. total sample in terros of categorical variables included in the. • •. study.. Using ccrrelation, rezression analysis, analysis of variance. and factor analysis the followil"!!',. proposition.~. were tested and. supported: 1.. Production is a function of resources:. higher levels of. production correspond to higher levels of resources. 2.. Higher levels of modernization are not reflected in higher levels of orO<luction when resource levels are. •. fixed. 3.. Modernization variables can be explained in terms of other modernization variables and in terms of resources.. •. 4.. Variables related to entrepreneurship are explained as a cOTr,bined function of the produetion and modernization proeesses and net as a direet conseouence of the presence. •. of resaurces.. • p. I ,-'. I 'f ,. •.

(5) •. • •. OF FACTORS ASS0CIATSfJ rUTE AliRICULTIYl.AL PRODUCTlr)!I AY ':r::r,U:);)10 LEVSL IH THE ORIEllTE DE A'¡TIOOUI~., COLQ''iBIA A~¡ALVSIS. •. • By. ,. Jaime Isa7.a-Restreno. •. •. A thesis. su~mitted. in nartial fulfi.l:'r:¡(!_rlt. of the reoui1'e1'1ents for the dc"1'ee of DOCTO" OF PHEj1snpEV. (M;ricul tural Fxtension-Adninístration). •, Un.iversit', of í{isconsin. •. •. ,. 1974.

(6) • •. •. •. • •. •. 1. •. •. •. • •. •. Copvrir,ht bv JaiMe Isaza Restrepo.

(7) •. • Acknowledgements. >. • • •. The author wants to thank his Major Professor, Dr. James A. Duncan, for all the assistance glven to him throughout his graduate work and for guidance during the course of this study.. • •. •. Valuable help and sUDDort were also provided by the followinQ; persons and organizations to whom the author is indebted:. •. Professor Robert C. Clark. • •. Professor Burton Kreitlow. •. Professor A. Eugene Havens. •. Professor Halter '1'. Bjoraker. •. Professor Donald E. Johnson. Jor'ge Crtiz Nendez Hernan Chaverre Alfonso Barreneche. • f. Jaime Lotero Emil Girard. Manuel Jose Rius. •. •. Jesus Sierra Anibal Zuluaga. • • •. A:L1)erto Guerra Eladio Paniagua. Aida Luz Arnaya. •. • •. Nury 'Velazquez .. • " ~ Personnel or. .Reg~onal DlrectlO:l o f'"corr.!!lunJ.catl.ons. ~. ~ .ReR:H."H"i '\,-;- -. Tt'-'. -',,:'\.

(8) •. •. • ,. •. Personnel of PY'eyecto de Desar!'ollo Rural del Oriente de Antioquia Caja de Credito Agrario Campesinos del Oriente de Antioquia Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario The Nebraska r1ission. • •. Kellogg Foundation The author al so wishes to express gratitude to his wife. •. •. •. • •. • f. . •. •. • •. • • <-. • •. Maria Teresa for her moral supoo!'t, unde!'standinr, and lave during this challcnging oe!'iod of his life..

(9) ,. •. •. CONTElITS. }. Page. • CHAPTER 1. .~. Introduetion Objectives Statement of the Pronlem. 1 2 5. CHAPTER II. •. •. • •. Theoretical. Fra~ework. The Concept o~ Develonment The Peasant Situation in Colombia: Factors ),im1tino- Production Land Distribution Inco1'1e llistribution Population Grm.¡th and lJnemnloyrnent Access to Credit 'Jar'<et Standards Rural Edueation Political Particination tíodernization and Agricultural Production: The Extens ion Anproacl; Evaluation of the tíoder!li7.ation Aoproach r·fodernization versus Structural Chanl?;e Conclusions of the Theoretical Frammwrk. 7 8. 10 10 14 17. 18 20. 24 26 28 36. 41 4-6. CHAPTER 1 II. .. • • • •. •. •. •. •. The Study Tbe Setting of the Study Hethodolop;v Researeb Desi"n The Pm)Ulat ion Sampling Stat ist ieal. ':ethods The Varii'!bles Interval Variables Categorical Variables Dependent Variable Indenendent Variables Hodernization Variables t:ntrenreneurshilJ Variahles Resource Variables The InstruTClent FOOT110TES. 48 56 64. 64 65. 66 69 6Q 70. 71. 72 72 72 75. 77 77. 79.

(10) •. •. PaITe CHAPTER IV. •. Analvsis of Data Results. >. Díscussion Proposition ~To. 1 ProDosition Ho. 2. •. • •. 86 86 89. 89 96. ProDosition No. 3. 100. ProDosit:ion Ho. q.. 106 108 109. "S. Factor Anal is Hodel for the Oriente de Antioquia Conclusions RecornOlenrlations. lltl. 117. APPElIDIX A InterviEM Schedule. 122. APPElIDIX B. • •. •. • •. •. •. Linear Regressions: Pronortion of Variation in Sorne Selected Variables Table 1 - All Samnle Table 11 - El Carmen Table III - San Vicente Table IV - Credit Grouos Table V - Non Credit Grouns Ta'Jle VI - Credit - El Caroen Table VII - Non Crectit - El Carmen Table VIII - Crectit - San Vicente Table IX - líon erectit - San Vicente Table X - ExamDl~3 of Linear Rev.ressions for HodernIzation Variables. •. • • •. •. •. 139 142 ltI4. 148 152 155 157. 159 163. 166. APPE:IDIX C Comparison of Groups bv Tovms, Credit and Tvpe of. Assistance Ta'hle I - Cor;¡narison of. •. 139. Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table. GrOUDS. fA'. 11 - Comuarison of Grouus 'B' 111 - CODDarison of Grouns 'C' IV - COl".Darison of GrouDs 'D' V - ComDarison of r:ro\los 'A-B' VI - Cornroarison of Grouns 'A-C' VII - COJ';Darison of Grouns 'B-I)' Vlrr - Co,"parison af Grauos 'C-D' IX - Comnarison of Gronps 'B-C' Ta~le X - Compal"ison of GrOUDS 'A-D' Table XI - CO~Darison of GrauDS 'AC-B!), Table XIr - Cornoarison of Grauos 'AB-CD'. 168 170 172. 173 174. 176 177 178 179 180 182 183.

(11) • Page. • APPENDIX D •. •. Analvsis of Variance for Categorical Variables Table 1 - Literacv Table 11 - Information Seekin~ Table III - Freouencv of Technical P,ssistanee Table IV - Duration of Technical Assistanee Table V - Tyne of Road Reaching the Farm Table '-'1 - TVDe of Sehool nearbv Table VII - Physical Limitation of Land Table VIII - Credit Orientation Table IX - Information Preference Table X - Satisfaetion as a Farmer BIBLIOGRAPHY. 4. •. .. .. .. ... • • •. •. •. 18!~. 18l¡. lB5 186 187 188 189 190. 191 192 193 194.

(12) •. • •. LIST OF TABLF.S IN TIl'C: TEXT Paze Table 1. Dístribution of FaITl Land in Colombia, 1960. 12. TabIe II. !listrihution of Personal Inco!'1e in the Ar,ricultural Sector of Colo!'1b5.a, 1950. 15. TabIe III. Inco~e. 16. TabIe IV. '\e¡;ional Credit Allocation in Colombia: Distribution per Lenders. 21. Rezional Credit Allocation in Colombia:. 22. of Producers Related to Size of Farm. • Table V. Distribution. •. .. n~r. rari.1 Units. Table VI. Formal Education in ColombiR, l%l¡. 2l¡. Table VII. Enrollment in Rural Schools in Colomhia, lS6 ". 25. Table VIII. Level of Education in Rural Colombia, 1964. Table IX. Land in Crops and Productio"2. 91. Table X. Crec1i t a!ld Pro(luct ion. 92. Table XI. Ar,ent Contact and Production. 93. 'rabIe XII. lIean Production in T:cree Adoption Catezories. 99. Table XIII. l"ean Adontion in Four Pro,luction Categories. 99. Table XIV. Linear Correlation of Agent Contact Hith Other Varia'lles. Table XV. Linear Correlation of. TabIe XVI. Linear Correlation BetHeen Resource and Hodernization Variables. 105. Table XVII. Exploratorv Factor Analvsis. 111. .26. f. .. •. ,. • •. •. :'~odernization. Va_riables. 101. 103.

(13) tIST OF FIGUPES ni TllE TEXT. Page. •. Ro~ers. :~rrangeYlenl. of 'lodcrni7sation. 48. Variables f1odernlzation and Prodnction: of F:verett. 1-', TCor:ers' Studv Fi~\lre. 3. F:ntrcDrcneurs\,in and Procluction: of James B. (;runig f s Study. Figure. [~. Samnle Arrangement. • •. ". ¡.. •. .. • • •. ,. • <. •. Interpretation. Fif,\lre 5. The Production Process: de Antíonuia. Interoretation. 51 53. 68 A ,!odel for Oriente. 113.

(14) • Chaptel' 1. • INTRODUCTION. • •. •. In diffusion theory it is al'gued that the peasant farmer is chal'acterized by a subculture of traditionalism, ol' lack of model'n traits, which prevents him froro agricultural production.. •. reachin~ hi~her. levels of. This tl'aditionalism must he ovel'come. in any attempt to incorporate the peasant farmer into programs of agricultural development.. On. the other hand, it can be. illustrated that basic resources necessary for a successful agricultural oroduction, such as good land, credit, and technical. •. ,. •. ... assistance are scarce among the peasant population. The purpose of this investigation is to determine the relative limitation that traditionalism has in the production process at minifundio level as compared to limitations imposed by lack of. .. basic resources.. •. process.. It is expected to determine whether modernization. is a necessary step preceding. imnrovements in the production. The area selected for the study is the Oriente de Antioquia,. ". •. Colombia, a typical minifundio zone where Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (ICA), a govel'nment organization, has been carrving out a rural develonment nrogram since 1971. This investigation seeks to promote a better understanding of the production process under the conditions of the Oriente in order to have better bases for future programming in this area..

(15) 2. •. Obiectives !he general objective of tbis investigation i5 to determine the relative limitation that tl'aditional behaviol' has in the pl'oduction pl'ocess undel' minifundio conditions in peasant communities, as compal'ed to the limitatiens imposed bv lack of. •. basic l'esoul'ces.. Specifically, it wiil determine the extent te. which productien, as a dependent v2I'iable, is assoeiated with the. follo~1Íng. independent variables l'epl'esenting model'nization,. entl'epl'eneurshin and l'esources:. •. Modernization Val'iables Age Size of tbe Family Fol'w~l. .,. Education. Litel'acy Attitude TO"TaN Accepting New Techniaues. .. Mass Media Exposu:::'e. Cosmopoliteness. •. •. I!embership in VoIuntary Organizations. ". Polítical Knowledge. •. Poli tical Efficacy Empatby. •. Le~'el. or Living. Satisfacticr!. tlS .;1. Far'i!eI'. Educat iOl1al Aspix's:tions. •. Opii).ion. lEadeT'~;h.:.?.

(16) •. 3. • Situational Fatalism. •. Sunernatural Fatalism Entrenreneurshin Variables Information Seeking. .~. •. Information Preference Adoption of Practices Innovativeness in the Use of Fertilizers. •. Practices Adonted since 1970. •. Market Orientation. •. Harket Alternatives Market Sources Used Information About Prices Perceived Need for a Chanpe in the Market System Difficulty in Obtaining Input Credit Alternatives Credit Orientation Difficulty in Obtaining Credit. •. •. Perceived Need for a Change in the Credit System Resource Variables Land Ownership Land Rented or Shared Land in Crops Land in Pastures Physical Limitations of Land Agent Contact.

(17) •. 4. •. Duration of Technical Assistance. •. Frequency of Technical Assistance Access to Health Center Type of Road Reaching Farm Type . of School Nearbv .. •. Loan in Pesos The r,eneral hypothesis of the studv is that resources, and. ... not cultural barriers, constitute the main limitation to agricultural. •. production at the oeasant level.. •. This hypothesis is expected to. be supported by testing the following prepositions: l.. •. Production is a function of resources:. higher levels of. production correspond to higher levels of resources. 2.. Higher levels of modernization are not reflected in higher levels of production when resoU!'ces are fixed.. 3.. . ". l1odernization variables can be explained in terros of other modernization variables and in terros of resources •. 4.. Variables related to entrepreneurship are explained as a combined function of the production and modernization. •. processes and not as a direct consequence of the presence. •. of reSOllrces. J.. If the aboye propositions preve true, a better arrangement can be made with respeet to variables plaving a role in the nrogramming or rural develoDTnent nrojects in which increases in agricultural production, ,1Íth the participation of the peasant farmers, are expeeted..

(18) • 5. • Statement of. ~he. Problem. Today, Colombia has an estimated population of 22,000,000. •. inhabitants of which approximately 50% are rural peo1'le. l. ~~rcent. •. of. ~he. Sixty. farms have less than five hectares representing 4.5%. of the t¿t;":;, f-,.,..,,, land of the country, 2 a situation agrava~ed bv the fact that 85% of the population dependent on agriculture receives only 40% of the total income of the agricultural sector. 3 Because of the situation just described, the peasant farmer is living under marginal conditions characterized, among othar things, by unequal distribution of land, low income, unemployment and poor standards of education.. Programs are needed to incorporate. this part of the population into the agrieultt.:ral development of the country.. The Ministry of Agriculture of Colombia 1.S. attempting to cope with this situation by promoting the development of the rural areas through several joint or;r,anizatlons.. •. them, tha Instituto Colombiano. Agropecua~io. One of. (ICA), is responsible. for the promotion of agricul tU1'al extension and research. 1'~'ograms.. Programs of agricultural extensicn carried oat by ICA are. • •. based on patterns or diffusion and auootion cf innovations.. Accord-. ing to diffusion tt:eory, the lo" levels o:' production ane product:evity in the peasant population. al'e. due to their traditionalism. 01". lack. of modernization manifes'ted by sorne cb<7tracte!'istics such as low le~"els of erirpathy, c:osmo~olitencss, media exposu'!"e., lite~acY:l. education, social status Gi.nd. "thers~.

(19) 6. •. •. !he key point of this theory i8 that modernization is a cr.ange of behavior, a process by which individuals change from a tra1icional to a more complex and technologically advanced way of life.. •. .... ~~~----. •. • .,. It i8. suggested that through a process of modernization it is p08sib1e to persu;;¡de the peasant farmer of the advantages of adopting •. ~t·ces.. nel~. l¡. ~. Diffusion and adoption of innovation theory can be expected to succeed if sorne assumntions are made, the principal one being that resoux'ces be truly availahls to peasants i.n sucn a way. that the practices recornmended can be applied.. • •. Looking at the. problem in this llay it 18 1mpliOO bv this theory chat when peasants do not show highel" production behavior i t ls not because they lack resources, but because they have negative. 01'. traG.itional. attitudes toward productlon preventing them from usbg of mo,krn practices.. Programs are then designed to chan¡:;e their behavior. from traditional to moderno TIte position taken in this reset1.X"ch 15 that the assumptícn. about the availability of resources is open to serious question. This position implies that the 1m.' level. • --,.. o~f. production among. peasants may be d1.le co lack of reSOllI'C€S and not to traditional behavior.. If th:'s position p1:)oves trae., it is recornmended that. extension programs be desif'!led with less emphasis placed on changing the behavior of peasants and givlng more atte'nt:1.on to the problems. of resources.. •.

(20) >. ,,. •. •. Chapter II. •. THEORETICAL. •. .... FP~MEWORK. One or the most common objectives or rural development projects -~•.-'. "~ln. increases in agricultural production through the use. •. or improved technology, capital and input.. •. securing peasant participation in programs or rural development results in improved production.. It is expected that. In turn, increased agricultural. production benefi ts the general econoroy or the eountry. When designing programs or rural development with peasant. • ••. •. participation, it is important to know what raetors may limit the production process.. The position taken in this study is that laek. or resources, and not traditiona,l behavior, is the main lim:::tation on this process.. ".. .. This nosition will be supported by a theoretical. framework which is based on rive points: 1 - The concept or development must be interpreted in. te~s. or the benefits shared bv the majority of the people of the community.. •. ,. 11 - The general situation of the peasants in Colombia in relation to land, income, employment, eredit,. m~kat,. education and political particípation indica'tes that they are not sharing the benefits oE rleveloDment. In - The efforts made in Colombia te l'each rura.1. development ",. through f:xtension programs have be en based on the ccncept of peasant. modernization~.

(21) , a. • IV - Extension •. ·. .. nro~ams. at peasant level have not proved to. affect agricultural production as had been exnected. V - Structural limitations faced by the peasant farmer, and not cultural barriers, may be the reaSOn for the lack of success in rural development nrograms.. • I - The Concept of Development Develonment is a prOcess which many scholars of economic research have. e~uated. with economic growth.. It is thus common to. find definitions of development identified with averaf,B rates of. •. increased production or output per capita.. •. explained as an influence of the way in which agricultural economy. •. develoned in the United States, where the conditions of a family. .. This tendency is. farm system and a relative scarcity of labor resulted in a positive correlation between increased production, employment and in come earning opportunities. 5 Also, the concent of per can ita income and economic growth have been the basis for the classification of countries as developed. •. or underdeveloned.. This apnroach to development seems to be. influenced by a conservative conception of society in which, assuming equilibrium in the social system, considering relations as essentially harmonious and inequities as part of life, the issue of development and increasing rates of growth becomes reduced to technical solutions. 6 But the general concent of development is a more complicated. • nroCess in which consideration has to be. ~iven. to human development,.

(22) ·,. 9. •. •. redistribution of polítical power, and redistribution of gain and losses.. •. Hore research is needed to establish the relationship. betHeen productivity increases and reduction of povertv, unemployment and inequalitv, all of which must be included among the indicators of develonment. 7 In this direction, the concept of economic development must be related to three kinds of social aetions:. a) the establishment. of an attainable ineome for the great majority of the people of. ... the society,. b) the ereation of the means to attain this goal and. •. cl the persistanee of eeonomic growth in the social system. 8 Perceived in this way, development not only involves increasing. •. output in all sectors of the eeonorny, but a distribution of the output in a >1ay in whieh the quality of the life for the great ..¡. ... maJor~ty. . •~mprove d • 9 o f t h e masses ~s. Applying the coneept of develoDment in the way just descríbed. .. to developing eountríes, where a rapid pODulation growth is still dependent on a,griculture, it can be seen that there is still a. •. great need for ereating emnloyrnent and better earning opportunities in the rural areas.. Programs designed to increase production have. not always resulted in rural development.. A new look must be. given to the nroeess of inereased production in eonnection with more equitable distribution of its benefits.. 10. Based on the aboye considerations it can be coneluded that the main reason to establish programs aimed at economic growth and develoDment is the improvement of life for the maiority of the.

(23) ·,. 10. population.. Tf the main goal is to obtain the betterment of the. peasant population, then programs of rural development must be established involving the majority of the peasant community; through programs of agricultural production, their income can be. -... substantially improved and their economy can attain a persistent growth.. Ir - The Peasant Situation in Colombia Factors Limiting Production There are strong indications of underdevelopment in the traditional rural sector of Colombia characterized by. .... distribution of land,. •. rates of unemployment, standards,. -. .. 1) unequal. 2) unequal distribution of income, 4) low access to credít,. 6) low levels of educatíon and. 3) high. 5) poor market. 7) lack of pOlítical. participation. Land Distribution The distribution of land in Colombia today is a reflection of the time of the conquest when a priviledged minority with polítical and economic power gained possession of the best and most accesible land in the country, forcíng the peasants to move to poor and hílly. .:.. zones in the mountains.. A high concentration of land in the hands. of a few has made the sale of good land scarce and expensive. Due to the. 10>1. income obtained bv peasants, >1hich precludes the. accumulation of savíngs, there is very little possibility for landless peasants to acquire land nor for minifundistas to expand theirs..

(24) ..'. 11. The agricultural census of 1960 reports 1,209,672 farm units covering an arca of 27,338,000 hectares.. , -. .. indicated in Table I. five hectares in. 196~,. The distribution is. Sixty hlO percent of the uni ts had lcss than representíng only 4.5% of the farro area,. whereas 3.5% of the units had more than 100 hectares representing. ... 66% of the farm land • Farms with 1ess than fivc hectares in the Andes and 1ess than la hectares in the Caribbean zone are classified as Sub-Family units not satisfying the mínimum requirements for one family throuf,h the utilization of their productive labor during the year.. 11. It is estimated that 620,000 families in 1970 were living in units. •. not large enough to produce an acceptab1e minimum income, this number increasing by approximate1y 30,000 fami1ies per year. 12 Attempts to salve the problems of land distribution have been made through land reform legislation initiated in Colombia in 1962. Ho,;ever, peasants have had more hope than realitv.. After nine years. ef programs, the decrease in the percentage ef large units has been very low and the sma11 units have tended te become smaller, making the preblem even worse. for. 196~. Land concentration (Lorenz Curve). was .856 and for 1970 increased to .880, ene of the. highest in Latin America.. Until June, 1970, INCOR4 (The Land. ReferID Institute) had distributed 98,731 has. from 209,994 acquired. in the forro of farro 1and; until September 1970, this institute had. ,. distributed ¡fS,lOO has. in irrigatíen projects, from 241,850 has. acquired in 16 districts, and unti1 December, 1969, INCORA had.

(25) ·,. 12. •. Tab1e 1 Distribution of Farro Land in Colombia 1960 1. •. Size •. Units. Hectareas. No. oi' Farms. Area %. Has.. %. • Less than. •. ... •. ... ,.. 1.0. 298,071. 21+.7. 132,000. 0.5. 1.0 to. 2.9. 308,352. 25.5. 51+6,000. 2.0. 3.0 to. 4.9. 150,182. 12.4. 561,000. 2.0. 5.0 to. 9.9. 169,145. l tl .O. 1,165,000. 4.3. 10.0 to. 49.9. 201,020. 16.6. 4,211,000. 15.4. 50.0 to. 99.9. 39,990. 3.3. 2,680,000. 9.8. 100.0 to 499.9. 36,010. 3.0. 6,990,000. 25.6. 500.0 to 999.9. 4,141. 0.3. 2,731,000. 10.0. 1,000.0 and more. 2,761. 0.2. 8,322,000. 30.4. 1,209,672. 100.0. 27,338,000. 100.0. TOTAL. • lO. l. .;. ••. Ministerio de A7,ricu1tu~e, Informe del Comite Evaluador de la Reforma A~raria, ed. Banco Ganadero (Bo¡!Ota: Li tografia del Banco Ganedero, l Q 71), p. 12. It doe$ not inc1ude Choco, Guaiira, El i1eta and Ter:dtorios Nacionales..

(26) 13. •. furnished 82,500 tit1es of ownership, representing 2,421,000 has • in new settlement prcjects. 13 !he Nationa1 Planning Department estimates that 40,000 fami1ies benefited from land reform projects from 1962 to 1968.. ... •. The overall budget for IllCORA frem 1962 to 1970 totals 't,0't5,763,000 pesos.l 4. .. thousand families with little or no property, growing at arate of. •. 1.'t% per year, suggests the size of tne prob1em.. !he future does not look very promising either.. Eight hundred. Bearing. in mind. that there are on1y 9,000,000 has. avai1able for distribution, it. ... ,. is not possible to distribute land for every family.. Future land. reform projects inc1ude three types of beneficiaries:. a) peasant. families without land now, depending on labor for their subsistence, b) peasant families belonging to the sub-family category and landless peasants now subsisting as renters or sharecroppers.. c). A. projection of the number of beneficiaries has been ca1culated for the period 1962 - 2000:. • ~'-.. Year. Number of Families Benefited. 1962. 802,000. 1975. 1,023,000. 1980. 1,117,000. 2000. 1,56lJ.,OOO. But the fact is that not a11 fami1ies can be benefited by land reform programs.. INeORA estimates 1,136,000 as the total possib1e. number of families with an option for land countiug: on a'¡ailable.

(27) 1 1,. •. •. .... resources.. The projected distribution is shown next:. a). 195,000 far.lilies in. b). 271 ,000 farnilies in colonization projects. c). 670,000 farnilies in oarcelation projects. irri~ation. proiects. The estirnated net cost for a distribution 1ike the one projected aboye is 140,983 million pesos in the next 15 vears, which. ... represents close to 9,000 rnil1ion nesos in financing needs per year. 15. A budget of 1,145 rni11ion pesos was assiBTIed to INCORA. for 1973,16 a figure well beloH the amount needed to carry out such a prograr.l.. • Income Distribution Studies of in come distribution in the rural sector of Colombia have shown that the. ~eat. majoritv of the economically active. population in 1960 received an income below 5,000 pesos per year, and that the lower half of that population received an incorne belo;¡ 3,000 pesos per year. 17. Table 11 sho;¡s that 15% of the popu1ation. in the agricultural sector received close to 60% of the income and 85% of the pODu1ation received close to 40% of it, giving a Gini coefficient of .59.. The reason for this di.stribution is that the. land 1s unequally distributed, as noted in Table. r.. Persons ;¡ith. high incorne are owners of 1arge nroDerties, as indicated in. • Table IU.. • .,.

(28) > •. .'. 15. • •. Table TI Distribution of Personal Income in the Agricultural Sector of Colombia, 1960 1. • .... ~. .. •. .. ,. Inco'lle in thousand of pesos or 1960 Categories. Percent of persons in the category. Percent of income received by persons in the category. Accumulated percent of. persons. Accumulated percent of income. -,. .... -,. ,,. O. 1. 8.79. 1.911. 8.79. 1.93. 1. 1.5. 32.72. 10.83. 111. 50. 12.76. 1.5. 2.0. 22.35. 10.02. 63.86. 22.78. 2.0. 3.0. 11.90. 7.511. 75.76. 30.32. 3.0. 5.0. 10.12. 10.25. 85.89. 110.57. 5.0. 10.0. 8.92. 16.09. 911.81. 55.55. 10.0. 20.0. 3.36. 11.82. 98.15. 68.118. 20.0. 100.0. 1.55. 15.22. 99.71. 811.30. 100.0. 200.0. 0.22. 8.60. 99.93. 92.90. 0.07. 7.10. 100.00. 100.00. 200.0. • 1.. ,. ... Albert Berrv y .~lf"':1s0 Padilla, "La Distribucion de In,o:resos Provenientes de la Agricultura en Colombia 1950," Boletb '!en~t:al de Estadistica ¡¡ - 2311 (Enero, 1971), p. X:;IV..

(29) -. .. ••. 16. •. Tab1e III. ,-. Income of Producers Related to Size of Farm. (Pesos of 1960)1. --l'".. .-. Size of Farrn (Hectares). Average Income. Number producers. •. ..... 1. 2. 1,160. 191,350. .,. 2. 3. 1,840. 117,000. .. 3. 4. 2,340. 92,000. 4. 5. 2,660. 58,200. 5. 10. 3,710. 169,150. 10. 20. 5,860. 114,200. 20. 30. 7,140. 44,050. 30. 40. 8,840. 26,500. 40. 50. 10,780. 16,240. 50. 100. 13,490. 40,000. 100. 200. 24,750. 22,300. 200. 500. 42,540. 13,700. 500. 1,000. 105,700. 4,140. 1,000. 2,000. 192,900. 1,975. 2,000. 553,200. 790. .. •. •. •. ••. •. ... 1.. Albert Berry y Alfonso Padilla. "La Distl:'ibucicn de Ingresos Provenientes de la Agricultura en Cclc:nbia -- 1960", Boletin Mensual de Estadistica H - 234 (Enero, 1971), p. XXVI..

(30) ..... ,. •. 17 In Colombia, the skewed distrihution of incorne is not a phenomenon of the rural areas alone.. 1.3% of the labor force of. the country received 14,8'6 of the total personal incorne in 1961-. "'. ... The sarne year, 8.4% of thís force received 25.5% of the lncorne and the large masses of the population, 90.2%, received 58.7% of it.. •. This incorne distribution reflects the social stratificatíon. of the country with a small dorninant class integrated by public functionaries, rich rnerchants and industrial magnates, latifundistas and aristocrats. 18. •. The rest of the society i5 composed of a. middle class trying to ernu1ate the elites and a great rnaiority of peasants and urban 1aborers.. •. A study. recently conducted by J. German Orref,o shows that. under the present structural organizat ion of the country,. ........ .,. incorne concentration will increase in direct relation with farni1y income increases,. 2). the incorne concentration in the rural. areas is a1ways larger than in the urban centers,. ... 1) the. 3). concentration. of rural incorne >/ill gro>¡ faster than urban income concentration, 4) hand labor productivitv in rural areas i8 lower than in urhan 19 centers. PODu1ation Gr01,th and Onemn1o'nnent. •. Present population trends indicate an increase in the number of rural people and a fast urbanization process.. The popu1ation. of Colombia is now estimated at 21,125,064 inhabitants >/ith prospects of increasing to 55,930,801 by the year 2000.. In 1938,. the rural population amounted to 6,168,136 persons and the urban.

(31) 18. .. •. population to 2,533,580; for. 196~. 9,239,262, and for the year 2000,. the figures were l3,6~7,995. and. 8,2~4,882. and. ~2,824,ll6. respectívely, showing a fast rate of urbanization.. ,.. .-. The econonicallv active populatíon For 1970 was estimated at 6,[~80,OOO. urbano. persons of which 2,808,000 were rural and 3,672,000. The actual nunber of persons eMn10yed in the rural areas. was 2,671,000, giving a margín of 137,000 unemployed,. 01'. 4.9%. of the economically active population. 20. .. The annual rate of rural population growth is estimated at 1.2% and desDite intense migration te urban centers, 100,000 persens are added to rural zones every year.. The urban pODulation increases. at the rate of 5.6% per year, resulting in a new labor force ranging from 168,000 to 200,000 persons everv year. 21. ....... ';. Access to Credit Peasant farmers in Colombia are suoposed to have access to credit through the services of government erganizations such as. ..,.. Caia Agraria, Banco Ganadero, etc. widespread.. ,. The truth is that peasants have a reduced capital,. their inceme barely satisfying their most basic needs, 1eaving no margin for savings.. •. This access has not been. On. the other hand, almost all commercial. farmers with Medium to large units are well capitalized to finance any intensification of their production, and their incomes allows. •• ••. them adequate. savin~s. for future investments •. Because of the neasants' inability to fu1fill all requirements with resnect to collateral, this group is usually excluded from all.

(32) -. . 19. •. credit sources.. From a total of 1,479,995 farm units in 1969,. on1v 30% received credit.. Cala Agraria aooroved only 65% of the. aon1ications it received.. From the loans approved by Caja Agraria,. 74% of the farm units received 22% of the loan value and 26% of the units received 78% of the loan value. 22 Loans made by all credit organizations showed a debt value of. •. 9,828 million pesos by Ju1y 31, 1970, from which 2,867 mil1ion were for erop production, distributed in 485,313 units and 3,498 mil1ion. ... were for eattle production, distributed in 174,407 units.. ,.. - --. -. .~. .. From. the total number of units, Caja Agraria took charge of 197,421 cases in which the fixed assets were lower than 50,000 pesos, loaning to this group a total of 497.1 mi11ion pesos.. Credit. concentration in government eredit organizations was 0.686 in 1968. 23 A typieal examnle of credit distribution is provided by Luis E. Hontero, who made a studv of credit a11ocation in four municipa1ities in the Department (State) of Tolima (Armero, Honda. ., ,. Fresno and [.!ariquita).24. For his study he classified farro units. as follows: Sub-family units:. those units with resouree limitations, in. which members have to work for a wage in other farros within the. ". communitv. Family units:. those units with enough resources to provide. jobs for all the mem.1)ers of the fami1v, but not enough to hire .>. extra labor.. Among these are sma11 scale units, with 50 has. or. less, and medium scale units with more than 50 has..

(33) .. ~. .••. 20. Multi-Family Units:. ..... units emnloying one or more permanent. workers (managers, field workers and or sharecroppers).. ,. Among these. there are small scale units with 50 has. or less, medium scale with more than 50 has. and large scale, employing more than ten persons. -. -.:~. on a full time basis.. The results of 239 units surveyed (Tab1esIV and V) shows that nine units classified as large farms, and representing &.16% of the units, received 47% of the total loan and eighty three units. classified as small farms and representing 35.9% of the units,. -. .. received 3.8% of the loan; this demonstrates that access to credit, as well as incorne, depends on land distribution, a situation resulting in little chance of credit for the peasant farmer. In other sections of the country the credit distribution follows the same pattern as that in Tolima.. In the municipalities. of Valledutlar and Codazzi (Department of Cesar) in 1968, Caja Agraria. ... approved 914 loans for less than 10,000 pesos each, representing 8% of the total sum lcaned.. ". In 1969, Caja Agraria approved only. 603 small loans, representing 3% of the total credit funds for that year.. Most of the laons (13% in 1968 and 88.5% in 1969) were made. in quantities exceeding 50,000 pesos.. ., in. '. ... Similar patterns were found. ten other municipalities in the Atlantic Coast zone. 25. Market Standards A study made at the peasant level in Colombia to determine the most limiting factoT's fer gocd l1ldI'keting cenditions showeG that ?0.2% of the respondents mentioned lack of 'transportation, 19.5% lack o;:.

(34) .,. 21. .. .-. TabIe IV Regional Credit A11ocation in Colombia Distribution per Lenders (in pesos)l. • C1ass Unit. •. Sub-Family. Total Loans. C. Agraria. 82,869. 54,350. 3!¡2,14!¡. 90,032. 6,750. 2,500. 9!¡6,537. Medium Large. B. Cafetero. Other Banks. Family Small. ... -. ... Medium. 6,000. H,500. 235,97!¡. 101,200. 58!¡,002. !¡,!¡87,715. 2,022,812. !¡19,!¡96. 2,200,600. 5,19!¡,251. 4!¡2,000. 808,252. 1I,095,684. 11,060,260. 2,847,668. 1,334,9!¡8. 6,858,786. Multi-Family Small. TOTAL. . .'.¡. •• ~. ". -, ... -. .' • >. .,.. .. ... ~. ,. lo. Prenared with information taken frol'l: Luis Eduardo l1ontero, "The A11ocation of _~gricultural Credit in Colombia." I1.S. Thesis, Ohio State University, 1969..

(35) 22. Table V. •. •. Regional Credit Allocation in Colombia Distribution per Farro Units. l. Class Unit. Units in Class. Loans in Class. Loans/ Unit. 40. 23. 1.9. 3,603. 82,869. 43. 36. 2.3. 9,504. 342,144. 7. 5. 2.0. 1,350. 6,750. Small. 86. 61. 2.4. 15,517. 946,537. Medium. 54. 115. 3.1. 99,727. 4,487,715. Large. 9. 9. 4.3. 577 ,139. 5,194,251. Sub- FarlÍly. Total/ Unít (pesos). Total/ Class (pesos). Family Small Medimll. •. Multi-Familv. ....... ... "M. ..,. '" ., •• ~. ~. -<. .... .... ... ~.. ~,. •. •. 1.. Prepared with .i.nformC\tion taken from: Luis Eduardo t·lontero, "The A110cation of Agricultural Credit in Colombia." 1-I.S. Thesis, Ohio State University, 1969 •.

(36) ... -. 23. •. pI'ice stability, 18.4% lack of infoI'mation, 13.3% lack of storage facilities, 11.2% 101< quality oroducts and 17.4% other problems. 26 These limitations make it difficu1t for peasants to organize markets. •. in order to have more stable prices and higher profits.. is far froro being solved.. Most of peasant farms are located far. from market centers, and have had ~roduce. farros. This situation. OI'. rudimentary communicaticns; these. only small amounts of marketable products which are. most1y perishab1e and of I'atheI' low qua1ity.. Therefore, pI'ice. f1uctuations cannot be contI'olled.. •. ~. market situation of the type just described has forced. peasants to depend on middlemen. -'. •. is cited by. A descI'iption of this dependency. Emil Haney in his study of Fomeque (Cundinamarca). where he depicts middlemen as either outsideI's purchasing freso pI'oducts in severa1 maI'kets thrcughout the regíon, or local residents with a variety of sources of income, who opeI'ate. ". • •. according to a set of imp1icit behavioral rules which result in high levels of specua1tion.. Small middlemen tend to de al with. specific cornmodities and specific clientele, but in turn depend f" • 2"' on 1aI'ge mI.• d dlemen.oI' the1.r tra.nsactlons.. Government orr,anizations '3uch as IDE1"A, supposedly helping the peasants in their market transactions, are not in a position to. .... rea11y influence the agricultUl'31 market. 3% of the total a¡,-ricultuI'a.l marke·t ,'olurne.. IDEt-IA has a share of In 1969, this. oI'ganization purchaspd 262,000 ton,; oí' basic prc¿ucts valued at. .-. 1~li.5 mil1icn nesos. 28.

(37) -. .. Rural r:ducation Though formal schoolin<; should not be construed as the only kev fOl' development, it is obvion" that fundamental education is. •. basic for the maintenance of a minimum of economic activity. People Hho know how to read and ;,Tite are in better position than illiterates when looking for alternatives in managerial decisions. Statistics shmr that l'easants are disadvantaged Hith resnect to literacv skil1s.. In 196'+ there was a l'0pulation of l¡ ,528 ,889. illiterates (15 years old and older) in the countrv.. •. eight percent of it. consisted of rural peonle •. Sixty-. 29. The opportunities for neasants to obtain a minimum of fundamental education through formal school are rather scarce.. Table VI shows. a distribution of enrollment in the three different tYl'es of formal education in Colombia:. elementary, secondary and superior. Table VI. ".. Formal Education in. 1961¡. Schools. Teachers. Students. Elementary. 23,611. 62,158. 2,213,l¡23. Secondarv. 1,295. 16,538. 228,6l¡6. 261. 6,Ol¡9. 37,l¡62. Superior. .,. Colo~hia,. Source:. DAaE, Anuario General de Estadist~ica 1961¡, Tomo II Culturales (Bogota: Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadistica, 1964). pp. 216-219..

(38) :-... .. 25. .. -. The elementary years of classes.. 01'. primary school in Colombia consists of five. There are three eategories:. 1) offíeial,. 01". fully supported by the government, 01" prívate, suppo1"ted by. •. ..... tuition. 2) male. 01'. female and. 3) rural. 01". urbano. The seeondary. sehool eonsists of six years of elasses and has elassifieations similar to those for elementary sehool. of colle1Oe education, it is also official -'. Superior education consists 01'. nrivate, but exclusively. urbano From the total elementarv sehools shown in Table VI, there. •. were 16,605 in the rural are as with 813,150 students and 21,959 teachers.. !!ost of the rural children >lho have the opportuni ty to. go to sehool only attend the first two years as indicated in Table VII. Table VII Enrollment in Rural Schoo18 in Colombia, 1964 1st Grade. 2nd Grade. 3rd Grade. 479,043. 236,333. 63,172. Total 5 Grades 813,150. , Souree:. DAIIE, Anual"io Genel'i'll de I:stadistica lQ6!¡, Tomo 11 Culturales (Bo"ota: Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadistica, 196 1¡), pp. 216-219.. The total enrollment for the five years of primary in 1958 >las 998,760 students in 16,758 sehoo18 with 26,937 teachers. 30 The effects of this pattern of schooling in the rural areas is reflected in a 10w level of education fol" the majority of the.

(39) 26 peasant population.. ••. The level of education reached by rlwal neople. in 1964, out of a pODulation of 9,332,970 persons 15 years old and older, is shown in Table VIII.. • Table VIII. .-. Level of Education in Rural Colombia 1964 "-e". Years of School Completed Some Prímary One year. •. Two years. Souree:. Number of People 3,069,358. 682,261 1,114,157. Three years. 830,719. Four years. 442,221. Complete Prímary. 252,251. Some Secondary. 65,200. Complete Secondarv. 16,427. SUDerior Education. 5,552. DMIE, "Boletín 1!ensual de Estadíst lea :lo. 249" 1972), p. 171. (April,. Po1itical Particination One of the most important elements in eeonomic deve10pment is the ability of the people to exnress their interests and to have the opportunity to partieipate in decísions which can alter thelr economic and social situatlon • •.

(40) 27. Public interest cannot be determined by edict, but should be determined by people who have the right to assemble in groups and arrive at their own decisions, and also have the bargaining power. •. to put those group decisions into effect. 31 Peasants do not have adequate representation in the democratic process in ColoMbia, and their interests are limited by the actions of a strong minority.. The way in which Emil Haney describes how. peasants from Fomeque (Cundinamarca) perceive the actions of polítical nal,tícípation ís an accurate reflectíon of reali ty.. •. Fomequenian peasants do not see local government as a responsible mechanism of collective action, but rather as a bureaucratic group whose members "among other things, collect and disburse local revenues for the maintenance of personal and village servíces, occasionally using their 'influence' to obtain outsíde funds for local constructíon pro-jects.". One consequence of this. percention of political activity is that neasants tend to solve their problems among themselves without any connection with public officials.. •. This situation leaves political decísions in the hands. of land owners, merchants, bureaucrats and the clergy.32 As indicated aboYe, the basic characteristics of tha Colombian agricultural sector are determined by the prevailíng unequal distrihution or land and incoMe, and by the limited access of neasants, .. ." •. particination. situation.. ~arket,. emnloyment, education and political .. Efforts hilve been made in arde!' to imp'r'ove this. As discussed in next section, one of these attenrpts has.

(41) • f;. .. ;. • -. .. 28. been through agricultural extension programs. The prevailing approach of these prop;rams has be en to. .->. modernize the peasant sector, and then look for an increase in their production outDut through a better use. .. of resources.. III - Model'nization and Ap;ricu1tura1 Production The Extension Approach The United States is known for its high leve1 of technological. r- ". progre ss in agricultural production.. Part of thls success can be. attributed to the activitIes of the Coopel'ative Extension Service. ,. which, in close contact with the farmer and the research organization, has been able to achieve widespread adoption of relevant agricultural. •. practices by the farmers • Countries 1ike Colombia, in great need of increasing its agricultural production, looked to the United States for assistance.. ..... It was then assumed that diffusion of available technology, rather than adaptive research, was the principal bottleneck to production in the Latin American countries.. , -". The adoption of sorne already. known farm nractices throup;h extension programs was expected to meet. ~Iith. a great possibility of success.. According to the. prevailing opinion, extension imoact could be enhanced by additional research, credit and other input, but none of these were necessary. -.. to reach a soeedy and imDressive resulto. Therefore, the assistance. of the United States to extension pro?,rams in Latin America was oriented to>¡ard production, declaring as i t s nain obj ecti ve the.

(42) ". -. .•. -. 29. increase of the level of farm productivity, and thereby, the level of rural welfare. 33 The main target of agricultural extension in Colombia has been. •. the peasant farmer.. ... concept that peasants have a 8ubculture of traditionalism which must. Extension. pro~ams. have been based on the. be overcome if increases in agricultural production are to be. ... ~. obtained.. A definition of the peasant made by Everett M. Rogers. supports this idea:. "Subsistence agricultural producer and. traditionally oriented rural villagers, who are seldcm completely. •. self-sufficient.,,34 Subsistence production is characterized by a low degree of. ,. commercialization and monetization, and subsiste.nce living refers to a level of living which is the minimum for survival.. Peasant. behavior, according to Rogers, i8 characterized by specific elements considered as central features of their subculture: 35 1.. Hutual distrust, suspiciousness and evasiveness in interpersonal relations.. 2.. Tendency to view the world as having an absolute quantity of that which is good.. 3.. -.. Distrust of f,overnment leaders, but in the meantime dependent on local and national government f01' the solution of their problems.. 4.. .'. Familism, or the subordination of individual goals to those of the family.. 5.. I'lCk. or innovativeness, tróditionally oriented, do not react.

(43) ." 30. to new ideas •. •. 6.. -. •. Fatalism or the degree to which an individual recognizes a lack of ability to control his future.. 7.. Limited aspirations on level of living, social status, education and occupation.. In SOrne way this attitude is. also expressed in terms of 101-1 achievement motivation, a social value that emphasizes a desire for excellence in order to develop a sense of personal accomolishment.. ". 8.. Lack of deferred gratification or a oostoonment of immediate satisfaction in anticioation of future rewards.. 9.. Limited viel; of the world with a tendency to live in the presento. 10.. Low emoathv, or the ability of an individual to project himself into the role of other persons.. Training programs and support for indigenous organizations have been considered the keys in peasant development, through which their static attitudinal patterns are turned into the more dynamic attitudes of modern and change-oriented groups.. Encouragement of. popular participation is expected in order to put human resources in active and creative use in the promotion of their own development,. -- , ,. disassociating oeasants from fatalism and passivity, causing them. -. possible. 36. .. -'<. ... •. •. to believe that changos in their li"es and economic welfare are. A generalization of the definition of the peasant made by Rogers cannot be accepted since it ltouId lead te the conclusion.

(44) •. •. . -.. 31. -. that rural people behaving in. ~he. traditional way described are. peasants, and those not behaving in the same way are noto. Or it. would lead to the conclusion that there is a range in traditionalism among peasants, but that range can also be found in the urban population as well. Assuming the final objective of extension programs is to improve patterns of production, it would make more sense to describe peasants as producers, traditionalism.. regardless of their level of. For this reason, the definition of peasant given. by C. Santos de Morais is more acceptable:. "Peasants are simple. producers laboring the land as owners, renters, sharecroopers, occupants, cornmoners, usufructuaries, etc., using their own means of production and making decisions about the consumption and distribution of the pI'oducts. ,,37 It could be argued that this definition may include any farmer, but it seems that by saving "simple oroducers" Santos de Morais means that peasants are on their own, aided by their families as. '.. _. -. far as the labcr force is concerned, and without the use of modern technology to replace labor, such as the use of tractors. depend primarily on their own means of production.. .. they oroduce their own seed,use compost. They. For instance,. produced in the farm. instead or fertilizers, do not use weed killers but only a hoe, and sometL":1es l'lake and repair their. mm. tools, etc.. If these farmers. are com)"lilred ',1ith commercial farmers of other place s , such as in t¡le United Statp.s, it is not difficult to establish the difference..

(45) 32. • .. ,. _.. However, no matter how simole the peasants are, they are stilloroducers,. •. dependin~. their production.. on resources and making decisions about. Perhaps these decisions are influenced by the. peasants' degree of traditionalism, but it may be the case that their decisions can be influenced by the way in which the means of production are accessible to peasants.. It seems more reasonable. to utilize this definition for the purpose of this study. Based on the concept of mocernization, i.e., changas in peasant behavior from a traditional to a mora complex and technological life, extension began in Colombia under the inf1uence of the U.S. Cooperative. -. .. Extension Service.. Its main objective was to educate the peasant. farmers in order to increasa their production and therefore, to raise their socioeconomic conditions.. The first U.S. Ilission to come to Colombia was the Johnson Mission in 1947.. .,.. .;,... t. Later in 1952, a contract was signed with the. as DA for the establishment of the "Servicio Tecnico Agrico1a ColoMbo-Americano (STACA). Boyaca.. This project was started in 1953 in. The arrangement of extension agent, horne economist and. 4-H assistant was then introduced.. STACA concluded activities in. 1962 and the extension service was taken over by the Ministry of. AgI'icul ture. Ar~Tooecuario. In 1967, extension oassed to the Instituto Colon'biano (rCA) and has been. under' the direction of. ~his. institute since that tirne. 38 An. indicaticn that ICA framed its eX.tension service on. nrinci-oles of modernization can be seen in the manual npolitica y Progra~ac1on". prenaren for ex1:ensioníst.o in 19[i7.. It is stated in.

(46) ... 33. •. • ,. this manual that the lack of technology in Colombian ar,riculture, manifested bv old and traditional production techniques, was resulting in low levels of production and productivity which, in turn, was responsible for the low in come and the low level of livinr, standard s among peasants.. It was therefore imperative to. bring nodern techniques to the farmer, esoecially to oeasants, so. .•. that by adootinr, them in their farms and homes, they could improve their econorny, and therefore enjoya complete and human level of living.. ... 1he need for an extension service to spread the needed. technology by apolying all instructional methods used bv this discioline was evident.. Amonr, its functions, it was stated, Were. the promotion and utilization of available research in order to improve country.. a~icultural. development in an integral way in the whole. Also, the service was going to Hork mainly in the. diffusion of knoHledge related to basic products. 39 But it was assumed that there was a barrier of traditional behavior in the peasant population since it is stated in this manual that the basic functions of the extension agents, in order to carry. out their instructional work, were mainly educational.. They expected to effect, through their actions, attitudinal changes, compatible with socio-economic development, tending to obtain an increase in income and a better level of living for the peasant famil y.. Therefore, the ag:ent had to apnlv all extension methods. cOrnoatible with the cultural level of the peasants with whom he worked in order to achieve the transformation and adontion of knowle d ge. 40.

(47) 34. •. .. .. -. In 1971, lCA launehed a. n~w. system of extension under the. name of Rural Development Projects, an idea taken fram the Puebla Praject in Mexieo.. These types of projeets are designed to. increase the yields of atraditional erop in areas of minifundio, consequently increasing the income of the peasant family.. The. essential stl'ategy followed by these projects is:l¡.l. .. •. 1.. High yieldinr varieties. 2.. Research about optimum praduetion practices. 3.. Errective. 4.. Adequate and opoortune sunnly of innut, mainly fertilizers. 5.. Adequate credit at moderate interests rates. 6.. Aecessible markets. 7.. Stable prices. co~unication. systems of technical information. It can be said that these factors are also essential in traditional programs of extension which are likewise concerned with similar objectives.. The difference is that in the Rural Development. Pro;eets, wider are as are covered and efforts are directed at predominant crops of the zone ,¡hich have good prospects for fast yield increase ano good possibility for markets. i.. -.. Also, a better. arraneement oí institutions and resources is expected.. Nevertheless,. diffusion and adontion of innovationspatterns are followed in the same way as in extension. ~ro¡r,raT'\s.. Since Januar,.r, lél'/3, therc has been a cha'lge in the name of all activities. relat~d. te. ru~al ~evelcp~ent. WOl"U "e}:tension" is no lonp:·,3r associated. carried out by ICA. ,, The. these activities#.

(48) ~. 35. .. lnstead of Extension Division, the administrative section responsible ~.. for rural programs i8 now called '<ural Development Division, whose functions are:. prograMmin~,. organization, orientation,. coordination and control of all aetivities aimed at the economic and. . 1 b,e~tt erment. soc~a. OTr. . t h e 1 ow ~ncome peasant f am2'1y. 42. As noted aboye, the basic objective of IeA has been to increase levels of production through an educational orocess in order to facilitate a better use of resources.. It is assumed that resources. are present and that behavioral chanF,e is needed to make use of them.. There is an impliei t contradict ion in ICA' s obj ec-ti ves.. the one hané!, the low income farnily must be reaehed. •. •. •. On. Gn the othe!'. hand, resources must be present so the programs can >1ork.. It seems. that the low ineome family is not after all the real concern of the. IeA.. Judging from the eriteria followed to establish a new agency,. the required conditions demand peasants. can. higher standards than the poor. afford.. One of the main concerns of the ICA in. selectin~. locations to. establish extension af"encies or develonment nrojects, i5 to find. •. approuria-te infrastructural conditions.. Assuming that this. condition cap be met, the Droblem of production is reduced to change Deasant behavior tm:ard 1'lOdernization.. The diffe!'ent criteria. used for selection o:' loealities a!'e: 43 1.. To find aa.e'1uate lana. for agricultural practices with potential. l'\eCh2~:lization,. and expansion of eron and cattle. prociuction~. 2... To. ~;elect a:t:"'~,3S:. :)r í'Jse!ltly- in nrcGuct5.on of, (oX' potential1y.

(49) 36. •. suitable for nroduction of) food cro1"s.. ,. .. ". .. Coffee areas are. not selected since they are already attended by Federacion Nacional de Cafeteros.. Preference is given to areas with. high numbers of reo1"le denendinp. on agriculture and a relatively high number of farm units of medium size. 3.. To select areas with publie services already established, good communication conditions, adequate climate and a defined land tenure system.. 4.. To select areas with eredit and market services already established, and ',lith social institut'ions and economic activity.. •. Other aspects considered were the mif,ration. patterns, soíl and to1"ographic conditions and family structure. The previous section has demonstrated how the efforts rnade by. ,. ..... the ICA through extension programs have been directed toward the modernization of the peasant family assumíng that changes of behavior are needed in order to make better use of resources and therefore, to obtain increases in. .. .. ~gricu]tural. oroduction.. An. evaluation of this approach is made in next section.. IV - Evaluation of the Hodernization Approach In general, models of extension copied from the U.S. Coooerative Extension Service have been criticized hecause they assume the existance of many other factors such as strong industrialization,. abundant credit and others, which are either lacking or. scarce at the peasant level in Colombia..

(50) ... 37. .. Herman Felstehausen, for instance, 114 makes reference te three. .,. basic elements present in the U.S. extension system which are not pr"sent in Colombia: >. 1) In the 15nited States, county agents. respond to or7,anized demands from farmers. infermat ion. relevant te these demands.. They have to previde 2) In the U.S. there. are ap;ricultural research and training centers developing farro technolo~y,. and. and training op"rators and technicians to apnly it,. 3) In the U.S., there is a local, regional, and national. information and distribution net'lork generating information at several 1evels.. ,. .. Ignacio Ansorena also offers severa1 explanations as to why the extension svstem has been so successfu1 in the United States, but ¡,hen apI'lied to Latin American conditions, the results "ere not as expected. 45. .... Th" presence of sorne conditions in the U.S.. favored the success of extension.. For instance, farmers have. '. organized themselves in societíes since the ninteenth century, forming nressure. • - .,. ~oups. to protect their interests.. By 1914, there. 'le re 9000 of these societies uith about three and one half million members.. The farmer population is highly literate, taking advantage. of information released in bulletins, ne..lspapers and 1'lagazines. PODular educatien is "idely sUDported, including agricultural instruction.. Professional agricultural education has also been. highly favored by the establishment of Land rorant College institutions - t. in 1862.. Agricultural research has received support since 1887. when agricultural eXI'el'imental stations Here ini tiated and extension.

(51) 38. • ,. ". itself, was organized as early as 1914.. In general, there has been. interest on the part of the politicians for agricultural development, and land was broadly distributed.. .... All this is in contrast to. Latín American conditions which include high concentrations of land ownership, lack of interest in investing in agricultural enterprises, education without influence on agricultural development, and. -. .. ••. inadequate infrastructure.. en the other hand, there has been an inability on the part of the Hinistries of Agriculture to carry out adequate extension systems, due, among other things, to lack of political power, lack of adequate finances and lack of personnel.. The result has been the. creation of a few extension agencies with inadequate resources, unable to produce fundamental changes in the agricultural sector. These agencies have been characterized by several factors, such as an obsession with technical matters on the part of the functionaries, activity oriented programs, i.e.. --..,.,. looking at what the agent. does (visits, projects, demonstrations, etc.) with action directed. • --. ..... to the production activities and not looking at the effect of his action.. All of this results in a routine performance by the agent. who expects a change of behavior on the part of the clientele. 46 These characteristics mentioned by Ansorena are confirmed in a study made by Joseph Di Franco and Roy A. Clifford of five extension or¡¡anizations of Colombia in 1962.. !hey concluded that. theh' findings indicated a lack of kno,;ledge on the P<il't of the personnel !'egarding extension objectives and principles.. !hey also.

(52) . 39. • found that extensionists tended to see their work limited by the lack of material resources in the organizations as wel1 as among the rural fami1ies, and many of thcm thought that peasants 1acked the personal capacity to carry out their recommendations. Extensionists felt that peasants did not possess the required ski11s.. These authors al so report evidence of too much invo1vement. on the part of the central offices and not enough invo1vement of rural fami1ies in program deve1opment. 47 The services offered by ICA's extension service are rather limited.. Of 915 municipalities in Colombia in 1970, only 59 of. them had extension agencies.. Applying massive systems of work,. these agencies expected to influence 60,000 fami1ies. 48. This. situation is eXDected to improve with fourteen new deve10pment projects laullched in 1973 covering 128 municipalities in which approximate1y 100,000 families can be served. 49. These efforts are. <-1. insufficient, bearin¡; in mind that by 1967 there Here 1,500,000 fami1ies in the country increasinq at the rate of 3% per year.. 50. !he fact is that extension programs do not seem to be giving the expected results.. A study made in a number of agricu1tura1. deve10pment Drojectc: in ten Latin American countries, including Colombia, ShO.'S that there is not any stronp; relationship between the work of national extension services and ·, 51 pro d uc t :LVlty.. ~rogress. made in farro. Ho evidence was found that extension service Has. instrumental in promoting improvement in farm technology, but it HaS found that other factors, such as credit and ffi3rket, were.

(53) 40. .. over¡.,helmingly important in explaining the progress made.. In places. whe:re the economic and institutional environment were propitious,. •. thc extension service cloes anpeal' to have plaved a useful part in speedin" un the development process.. It was found that pockets of. progress in Central and South American countries have enjoyed. •. either an infusion of creclit 01' a favorable market for local cash crops, 01' both, and that the absence of progress was associated more often than not with tbe ahsence of these factors. The general consensus seems to be that programs of rural develonment >:here reSourceS have been assumed to be present and. -. efforts focused on the modernization of the peasant, have not been successful as far as their imnact on agricultural production.. "~en. ICA took over the extension service in 1957, it was ackno>:ledged that, for several reasons, previous services bad not produced the expected results and tl1at this was the reason for the establisbl'1ent of an "adecJUate extension service", integrating functions of · . ,ln one slng . 1 e organlzatlon. .• 52 e d ucatlon, researcu'- an d extenslon. ... The results of ICA's efforts have not he en very satisfactory either.. In a meeting of regional directors of rural development. in May 1973, an evaluation of their activities was rnade and the f01lowing conclusions were reached: "Hakinr, a comparison het>leen the obtained and expected results, tbe balance does not fully satisfy the institutional aSDirations because of: l.. Insufficient resources.

(54) .. 41 ~. .. 2.. Programming made Hithout the participation of the community. 3•. Lack of understanding on the part of the agents of the socio-. • •. -. cultural reality • 4.. Lack of institutional coordination. 5.. Lack of definition of the (administrative) communication channels.. ..... .. ,. .. Lack of knoHledge of functions and objectives of' the Division and the Institute in general, on the part of the. ~--. --. 6.. .... .. change agent.,,5.3 The conclusion of this "ccetian is that modernization programs have not succeeded ln bringing about impr'ovements in the agricultural production process at the peasant level.. A neH look at the problem. must be made hearing in mine! the actual Hmitations of the peasant. ". .'. This is the subject of the next section.. v - Modernization versus Structural Change. ".'. As discussed thus far, the backHardness of agriculture in poor communities has freouently been attributed to particular cultural barriers.. ". . •. Values are related to >Torl<, thrift, industrious-. ness and asuirations for a higher standard of living.. l~ey. then to explain why there is so little economic. nrogress. gro"~h. are used. and \-lh'"! particular economic development nrograms are unsuccessful. in realitv.. Thodore H. Schultz says that it is not necessarily so.54. It is argued, for instance, that peoole of poor communities do not care about working hard and that presumablv the leisure associated.

(55) 42. •. with that idleness is said to be valued. ~ore. highly than the. increased nroduction that could result from hard working.. 7he. inference made is that people of poor communities value theír. '.. -. •. idleness too hir,hly.. But what is not calculated, according to. Schultz, ís their lack of viKor and stamina to work hard and the 10H marginal return from additional Hork.. Therefore, traditional. agriculture is not a conseauence of particular farm people having the preferences of loafers, but Hhat seems to be loafinK is a consequence of low marKinal productivity of labor •. .. ". With respect to thrift, it is often. •. lack of thrift in poor stagnant. ar~ued. a~ricultural. that there is a. communities, and that. this is a consequence of cultural attributes of the farmers in. ... ... those communities.. Thev simply are not willing to save enough to. get ahead because they are supposedly subject to particular constraints tl1at cause them to indulge in much wasteful consumption, as that exhibited ;lhen snecial occasions, such as marriages and festivities, come along.. •. The question is, what rewards are gained. by these people for savinv more monev from a meager income?. The. rate of return on such savings, wl1en they are invested in traditional factors of production, is exceedingly low and the expense of festivities are the onlv way they find to tolerate their harsh. -. .. • 55 eXlstence.. Popular participation in development is a nrocess in which neople. '.. are directly involved to effect fundamental social, nolitical and economic. chan~es. in the direction of justice, but usuallv it is.

(56) .. 43. • taken for p;ranted that the social system i8 flexible enough, and wilHnr, to accomodate populi1r participation.. Therefore, in programs. of rural develop'1ent the problem are attributed to tbe peasants and not to the system.. .. -. .. the attitudes of Deasants tO;¡i'ird denendencv.. ... ... But what i5 not. realized i8 that this dependency is not attitudinal but the actual situatíon which keeDs the peasants out of the poHtical and economic decision-makinp; process.. .. Prof,rams eXDect, for instance, to change. Csanad Toth argues that this emphasis on. behavioral change evades the real issue of structural change and reinforces the false assumption that the fault Hes in the victims' behaviors and that the onpres5ed and not the onpressor are to. •. blame.. 56. TIle real consequence of this is that by chanr,ing neasants'. attitudcs toward deuendency, they are falsely led to believe that throur,h cooneration and voluntary efforts they can 5ubstantially change their situation, "hile the real situation i5 that their structural and institutional prob18ms are heyond their control. One more factor to consider when comnarinp; conmercial farmers. •. .-. to neasants >lith respect to develonment, i5 that the freedom to decide, to experiment and to acceDt risk is infinitely larger among commercial farmers.. •. •. The cost of a mistake to a subsistence farmer. may be a threat to his existence. 01'. the 1055 of hi8 land.. TIlerefore,. the alleged attitude tO'darcl risk showed by the nea8ant i8 in reality a wise safety mechanism. ,*. Looking at the 8ituation in this perspective, another explanation can be given fol" limitations in programs of clevelopment at the.

(57) 4 tl. ,. •. peasant levelo. Harion R. Brown comnents that Drograms seeking to. snread the adontion of improved 8p:ricultural oractices in uderdeveloped countries find a very narro"., margin within which mass media can . · rea11V per f orm ~mpress~ve resu 1ts. 57. The effects of this media on. farro technology are only observable in a narro", marr:in betHeen the. •. practices the farl'lers already follol-l and the improved practices it would be feasible for then to follo;1 given the situational restraints represented in exísting physicA.l, i.nstitutional and. •. ... technoloeical factors.. It is only whhin these situational limitations. that mass media content becol'1es functionallv relevant and can have immediate effects on farmers' behaviors.. ... This case can be illustrated bv a studv on adontion conducted by Paul J. Detschman and Orlando Fals Borda in Saucio, Cundinanarca. 58 It was found that the local farmeY's of Saucio Here the source or cOl'1p1Unication for the first informat ion about new ideas in the cases.. .'. of. The other sources Here individuals of other cOP1l!lunities,. mostlv farmers and stoY'e operatOl's.. •. 43~;. Seventeen percent of the cases. indicated that they had received sorne information from mass media, and onlv 1.2% of the farmers in the study were first inforl'1ed by mass media communication.. Literacy correlated .20 Hith the adoption. Scol"e and 69", of the illiterates exposed to mass media were high adopters, indicating that thev had help from other mernbers in the. ,. .. family Hhen getting the information. On the other hand, personal characteristics rnay be less important than institutional and s ituatioTIal factors.. For instance, "!arion R..