Le développement, pour la masse ou pour une élite ?

Abstract

For the mass or the elite ? - Has the transfer of the responsibility for development (extension-work) from the State to the farmers that took place in 1966 satisfied the hopes raised at that time ? Does it give farmers as a whole control over their own development ? There has been much criticism and anxiety has been felt at a local level amongst advisors and others in charge. Competition between public, all-round extension- work financed by all the farmers and accessible to all, and the commercial popularisation of firms reserved for their customers, specialising in production under contract, is at the root of this attitude : which is most efficient ? Within the private system the farmer is sure of keeping his innovations for himself and not being imitated by others ; he is sure of selling and is in part protected. On the other hand public extension work is reproached with contacting only a small number of farmers, those who are already more developed ; whereas theoretically it is they who have least need of it. It is the working of the production chain and the generalisation of knowledge of innovations that requires examination. How does it affect the farming branch ? Two aspects are considered : The public development services and private firms or cooperatives have a very different impact on the farmers. The former seem to have less impact than the firms. In the example analysed here this difference is due to the fact that the private firm aims to increase its turn-over, therefore it attempts to contact the greatest possible number of farmers. But it chooses those who are slightly better-off than the average in the region. Without modifying completely their usual production system, it encourages an increase in their fodder production and introduced production under contract that ensures a high income. The agricultural development committee, which is more ambitious, attempts, under the influence of the more advanced farmers and their leaders, a complete change in the stockbreeding system. It is in conflict with their attitudes and seems to have less success. How can development programmes, adapted to the needs of the different categories of farmers, be set up ? The analysis of the use of the main techniques by the farmers enabled typical forms of behaviour to be defined. The choice of techniques to be popularised is a result of this. In particular it seems that relatively simple inexpensive modern techniques could improve the position of the most backward and help them to catch up with the mass of average farmers. Thus the value of moderately ambitious popularisation is clear. For the most advanced farmers the choice is obviously very different : they need much more sophisticated proposals. Following this research, in an atmosphere where men and money available for development are scarce, one must choose between the mass and the elite. Cannot the latter themselves finance their knowledge of advanced techniques ?