• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Introduction
 Forces behind the processes
 Implications for global economic...
 Implications for global sustainable...
 Concluding remarks
 Reference






Group Title: International working paper series - IW95-2
Title: Agricultural industrialization and sustainable development
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054792/00001
 Material Information
Title: Agricultural industrialization and sustainable development a global perspective
Series Title: International working paper series
Physical Description: 29 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Davis, C. G ( Carlton George ), 1936-
Langham, Max R
International Agricultural Trade and Development Center
Publisher: Food and Resource Economics Dept., Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: [1995]
 Subjects
Subject: Agriculture -- Economic aspects   ( lcsh )
Sustainable agriculture   ( lcsh )
Farms, Large   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p.26-29).
Statement of Responsibility: by Carlton G. Davis and Max R. Langham.
General Note: Title from cover.
General Note: "January 1995".
General Note: At head of title: International Agricultural Trade and Development Center.
General Note: "Invited paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Agricultural Economics Association in conjunction with the 92nd annual meeting of the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 28 - February 1, 1995."
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00054792
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001985984
oclc - 32059669
notis - AKG2950

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Forces behind the processes
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Implications for global economic development
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Implications for global sustainable development
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    Concluding remarks
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
    Reference
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
Full Text


IW95-2



INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL TRADE
AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER


AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIALIZATION AND
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

By
Carlton G. Davis and Max R. Langham

IW95-2 January 1995


INTERNATIONAL WORKING PAPER SERIES


FOOD AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611









AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIALIZATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:
A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

Carlton G. Davis and Max R. Langham'


Issues relating to agricultural industrialization and sustainable development have

emerged as important contemporary areas of debate within and outside of the agricultural

professions, at both national and international levels. These issues are likely to receive

increasing attention by agricultural economists and other agriculture and natural resource

related professions, well into the twenty-first century. The concept of agricultural

industrialization as a nomenclature describing significant structural changes in the food and

fiber system (domestic and international) is of relatively recent vintage, as is that of sustainable

development. While these terminologies are "newcomers" to the literature and the debates, it

should be recognized that the elements of the processes that they describe and the forces

behind the processes, are by no means new. What might be new, however, is the increasing

attention being given to the public policy concerns emanating from the processes as we

approach the twenty-first century (Barkema, Drabenstott and Cook; Henderson and Handy; van

Ravenswaay; Batie; Castle, Berrens and Polasky).





'Invited paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Agricultural Economics
Association in conjunction with the 92nd annual meeting of the Southern Association of
Agricultural Scientists, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 28 February 1, 1995.

Distinguished Service Professor and Professor, respectively, University of Florida, Food
and Resource Economics Department. Without implicating them in any way, the authors wish
to acknowledge and express appreciation to Ralph Christy, Clyde Kiker, and Richard Kilmer
for their input in this paper.








Briefly stated, agricultural industrialization refers to "the increasing consolidation of

farms and to vertical coordination (contracting and integration) among the stages of the food

and fiber system" (Council on Food, Agriculture and Resource Economics, 1994a, p.1).

Sustainable agricultural development is one dimension of the general concept of sustainable

development. Sustainable development as a concept, means different things to different

disciplines (Cernea, Munasinghe, Rees, Serageldin, Steer and Lutz). The concept is grounded

in the initial ideas of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) which

suggested the Biospheric World View, but has evolved through various stages to relate

specifically to agriculture (Food and Agriculture Organization/Technical Advisory Committee

(1989). We define sustainable agricultural development in this paper as an agricultural system

which over the long run, enhances environmental quality and the resource base on which

agriculture depends, provides for basic human food and fiber needs, is economically viable, and

enhances the quality of life of farmers and society as a whole (Office of International Studies

and Programs).

The agricultural industrialization and agricultural sustainability processes and their

associated policy concerns are being fueled by a common set of complex changes, including,

among other things: (1) increased consumer demands (2) institutional restructuring in the food

and fiber system (3) new production and information technologies (4) increased efficiency

goals (5) concerns about risk management and (5) increased financial requirements in the food

and fiber system. Increasing returns to scale is a fundamental force behind the processes.

Denison (1974) and others working on productivity have estimated that about one-third of the

gains in productivity in the United States come from increases in scale. Increases in








productivity are also clearly recognized as an important factor in increasing ones comparative

advantage. Perhaps our commercial farm firms are ahead of us professional economists in

recognizing the importance of these issues for their own economic survival and are moving to

position themselves in the increasingly open world-trading environment in which they find

themselves. A major problem for us economists is that economies of scale moves us away

from a competitive model and the conceptual basis with which we are comfortable, and into

the realm of imperfect competition, and the situation where our premises lead to no well

defined saddle-point (Krugman). This dilemma is well captured in the observation that this

trend has spawned a situation in which, "The traditional reliance on price adjustments to signal

changes in supply and demand conditions for commodities has been reduced (Council on

Food, Agriculture and Resource Economics, 1994b, p. 8).

We note, and think that it is not inconsequential from a policy perspective, that the

requirements for sustainable agricultural development also moves us away from the competitive

model. These requirements reorder the criteria for valuing human-welfare gains by measuring

and incorporating environmental elements in contrast to strictly economic accounting criteria

such as GNP and GDP. This is a fundamental shift away from our orthodox ways of

measuring developmental progress. This shift is well articulated in the statement, "the

ecosystem contains the economy to which it supplies a throughput of matter-energy taken from

in natural uses according to some rule of sustainable yield rather than according to individual

willingness to pay" (Daly, p. 187). If the imperatives of agricultural industrialization and

sustainability are moving the policy formulation process away from orthodox competitive

economic equilibrium solutions, there are also indications that significant counter-flows are at








work in the global arena. Some of the more important counter-flows are: (1) privatization

as an engine of growth (2) trade liberalization under the GATT and (3) consolidation of capital

and product trade flows into mega-trading blocks.

This paper seeks to contribute to the dialogue regarding the interactions between the

agricultural industrialization phenomenon, and the emerging sustainability requirement that

growth (scale) in food and fiber production must be accomplished in environmentally benign

ways. The paper is primarily conceptual, since research efforts on links between agricultural

industrialization and environmental integrity are in their nescient stages. The first section

presents a discussion regarding what we consider to be some of the key elements underlying

the processes and forces shaping them. The second section examines specific global economic

developmental trends as defined by the relationships between the North and the South,

particularly as these relationships are affected by the agricultural industrialization/sustainable

development nexus. The third section examines implications for sustainable development

policies and strategies that appear to be logical extension of the forces discussed in preceding

sections. Section four presents some brief concluding remarks on the issues discussed.


Forces Behind the Processes


If agricultural industrialization and the realization of agricultural sustainability are a

consequence of a set of similar forces operating on our global system, "What are these forces?"

In this section we speculate and suggest at least a subset of them. In doing so we implicitly

assume that the forces are exogenous to the system in which size of firms and the degree of

concern for and impetus relating to sustainability are endogenous and moving more or less








together. We think the system tends toward a recursive structure. However, we hasten to point

out that our knowledge about this structure is conjectural. Furthermore, we point out that

knowing whether a variable is endogenous or exogenous is very important to the policy-making

process.2


More Open Markets and Increasing Trade


During the past two decades capital markets have become very open and efficient

among countries with tradable currencies. Recent developments with NAFTA and GATT

suggest a growing international recognition of the potential of gains from trade. This greater

openness creates an environment of increasing concern about a country's comparative

advantage, or in the longer term and the popular business language of the day,

"competitiveness". A more open system where products are traded more freely also encourages

greater economic efficiency in the use of the world's resources for a given level of production.


Greater Concentration of Consumers and Proximity Spillovers


As the world-wide migration of people from the rural areas to the mega-cities and lesser

metropolitan areas continues there is a greater centralization of markets. These markets

encourage bigness in both the sources of supply and in transportation and methods of




2For example, Johnson (1994a) presents an interesting account of rural population policy
in China and the inconsistent signals the policies send to the rural families. His discussion
suggest that rural population may be endogenous contrary to what we economist generally
assume and that policies to directly lower the population conflict with the government's
manipulation of some exogenous instruments which set in motion individual decisions by
farmers to increase their family size.









distribution--especially for tradables. This migration also relieves relative pressures on the

natural resource base in rural areas--especially those areas which use slash-and-bum and other

traditional techniques of production. Admittedly, this trend seems offensive to those who see

the small subsistence farmer as a way of life and a thing of beauty. However, the rural poor

view migration as an opportunity and it offers one of the few ways they have available to

increase their expected economic well-being (Papanek and Kuntjtoro-Jakti). The degree of

urbanization of a population also is a known factor in lowering fertility rates. Migration does

create real metropolitan hot spots in the environment, but as our earth becomes more crowded

it also permits economies in assembling and processing wastes. There are also scale effects

in delivering health services--especially clean water and educational assistance programs for

better nutrition and family planning.


Greater Use of Purchased Inputs


The industrialization of agriculture is encouraged by quantity discounts and bulk

purchases of inputs. Large firms have a distinct advantage in the input market both because

of their increased bargaining power and the lower per unit cost of packaging and transporting

inputs in large quantities3. The by-passing of the local dealer reduces the number of

middlemen. Even when large purchases are made through a local dealer, the movement of the

input materials is often direct from the source to the user.




3For example, on a field trip by one of the authors to a Pioneer Hybrid plant in Zimbabwe,
seed corn was packaged in sizes starting at 5 kilograms for sale in local markets to small
farmers who used public buses for transportation to sacks of 100 kilograms for direct sales to
large producers.








Transportation


The average per unit cost of moving agricultural inputs and outputs is a declining

function of volume in a time frame which permits changes in methods handling and the type

of carrier used. Considerable amounts of grain in the midwestern region of the United States

are moved directly from the farm to a river or lake terminal with perhaps only the transaction

being made through a local elevator. Also, farmers with large quantities generally have less

difficulty scheduling with truckers. As such, economies of size in transportation occur from

physical handling and moving and also in paper work and other fixed cost of transactions.


Technology Versus Space


A well-known phenomenon is that developed countries (the so-called North) have found

it easier to increase production by increasing yields than by increasing the area cultivated,

while developing countries (the so-called South) depend more on increased area cultivated.

Agriculture has a history of using too little capital and too much labor (Johnson, 1994b). This

becomes less true with increased levels of economic development. The willingness of small

farmers in less-developed countries to use more labor per hectare of land and hence drive down

'their marginal productivity of labor has often been used to argue that small farmers are more

efficient producers. This is true only in terms of the partial productivity of land. It is not true

in a multi-factor sense of productivity. As countries develop economically, labor markets

converge as do the capital markets and less labor and more capital are used in agriculture.

This trend leads to a greater use of technology and the result that it is easier to make gains in

production with increased yields versus increased area. Those who use technology well will









crowd out those who do not and agricultural firms will grow in size. From the agricultural

sustainability perspective this trend can be positive because it means that we can get our daily

bread with less land. In the long-term and assuming that increased population does not

overwhelm the development process, agriculture in a privatized and open system will

concentrate on the most productive lands from a global perspective. This trend will help

preserve the more environmentally sensitive lands that are marginal for agricultural production.


Gains from Labor Specialization


There is some specialization of labor on family farms, much as occurs in households.

Task responsibilities have a way of being partitioned so that individuals know what is expected

of them. With movement toward larger firms (domestically and internationally), there are

greater opportunities to further specialize tasks and to capture gains from specialization as per

the old truth from Adam Smith. For example, in the United States some of the large hog

operations which are currently evolving have training courses for specialization in specific

tasks. Contracts for production also lead to a partitioning of tasks and greater specialization.


Economies of Scale in Doing Business


With increased population congestion and new knowledge creation, producers in all

sectors will move toward a more highly technical and regulated decision environment. In such

an environment there will be ever increasing opportunities for the specialization of such tasks

as tracking business and having a paper trail, sourcing and managing new information, meeting

operational and reporting requirements of environmental regulation, following food safety









standards, assuring contracts specifications are met, and being responsible for personnel

requirements, and other legal mandates. There are great economies of scale in handling such

matters. A small farmer will simply be overwhelmed by this myriad of tasks and skills that

a more regulated decision environment will place on him or her. New firms specializing in

the provision of such services for a fee will come into being but again there are economies

with the larger accounts. Externally mandated requirements in regulating such things as the

environment for sustainability, health and food safety, and personnel will lead toward both

increased industrialization and sustainability objectives in agriculture.

There seems to be little doubt that we are moving globally toward greater sensitivity

to our natural capital stock and the sustainability of it for life and lives in future generations.

These concerns will undoubtedly translate into greater efforts to both regulate and monitor how

environmental and natural resources are used. We would argue that such increased regulation

if enforced, will encourage larger firms in agriculture for at least two important reasons. First,

the private cost of learning about regulations and how to satisfy them is fixed. A large firm

can spread this cost over more units of production. Secondly, the public cost of educating,

monitoring, and policing firms' behavior will be less with fewer of them.


'Intellectual Property Rights and Research


The possibilities of capturing rents from intellectual property rights is encouraging more

research in the private sector both on the product and input sides of markets faced by

agricultural firms. Increased interest in agricultural sustainability and the environment may

also lead to increased quest for rents from new methods of managing and treating potential








pollutants and reducing resource depletion. There is also a marked increased in joint

public/private research activity with arrangements for sharing royalties. At least in the United

States privately funded research in the agricultural sector is growing faster than publicly

supported research, and provisions to protect intellectual property rights in GATT should

support the quest in a broader global framework. Also, many multi-national firms are large

on the supply side of agricultural markets and are positioned to capture some gains as both

producers and users of new technologies. This force may be of relatively minor importance

in the industrialization of agriculture but it is not neutral and again points to economies of

scale.


Lower Cost of Capital


An important reason why capital has been historically under used in agriculture has

been its inability to compete against manufacturing and other non-farm sectors. In large part,

this is due to the transaction costs in making and servicing small loans to small farmers. With

the current international trend toward privatization and openness, these forces again encourage

larger farms--especially since governments seem to be increasingly unable or unwilling to

subsidize this input.


Risk Management


Increased size can provide a firm with greater opportunities to manage risks both in

terms of its portfolio of activities and its ability to access information and capital. For

example, the owner of a large privately held rice farm in Guyana, South America also runs a








large rice mill, markets rice internationally, and has non-farm activities. Sixty percent of the

rice entering the mill is purchased from smaller rice producers. The firm is not as completely

dependent on its rice production for its income as are the small farmers who depend almost

solely on their rice crop. In the United States, a large hog operation which farrows, feeds,

slaughters, and markets boxed meat is not dependent solely on those activities found on the

typical hog farm. Whether the lower risk associated with this vertical integration can offset

the added risk of disease remains to be seen.


Organization of Agricultural Firms


Related to the element of risk management is the need for organizational changes at the

firm level in agriculture. Our image of small farmers buying inputs from local merchants and

selling their products in local markets is close to our favored competitive model in economics.

Today, this model is most applicable to small traditional farmers producing for and selling in

local food markets and there are many of them in all parts of the world--especially in the

developing countries. However, this model is most applicable to situations where decisions

are made predominantly on near-term price signals without explicit concern for sustainability

objectives. For fully commercialized farms which are privately held and producing for open

markets, the model is less helpful in explaining what is happening. It is this latter farm setting

which we see as dominating in the twenty-first century as we become increasingly concerned

about an adequate supply of cheap food from a sustainable agricultural system, and are








politically willing to regulate for sustainability as increased knowledge of the environment

permits.4

What organizational structure makes sense in this environment?5 To us, it is one that

is able to accommodate a production environment where there is a large set of external signals

in addition to prices to which the farmer must react. This set includes public opinion, what

is going on in public hearings on the environment, more information about alternative sources

of supplies and prospective markets for products, what other farmers are doing, trends in

consumers' food preferences, the public's image of food and fiber producers, what is coming

down the information highway with respect to competing sources of supply in an international

setting, and what is being uncovered in research centers as prospective new technologies.

This list is not at all exhaustive, but it suggests that a primary producer who wants to

be an independent entrepreneur will either need to spend more time handling and managing

information and hence less time doing the physical work. This implies depending more on

hired labor and perhaps hired production managers. An intermediate step, which is being

increasingly used in the North and the South, is to produce subject to a written contract with

an agri-business firm that needs a well-defined agricultural product. In this contractual

environment, the major decision a farmer will make is which contract to sign. However, fixed




4Problems and issues relating to subsistence and near-subsistence farming systems will
require more rather than less attention in this setting. A good proportion of the issues in this
setting will revolve around the questions of income distribution (poverty), health, food security,
inclusionary growth, and social justice.

SSeveral economists have written on the organization and its economic role in production
and how organizations influence the structure of economic activities (for examples Barry, et.al,
Simon, and Stiglitz).








investment and experience requirements will tend to lock individual farmers into similar

contracts over time. As we look to the future these contracts will include provisions to satisfy

environmental and food safety issues.

This scenario we paint means agricultural economist interested in agricultural production

will need to work in an increasingly interdisciplinary mode with those who have expertise in

such areas as ecology, business especially organizational management, sociologists, and

environmental and business law, to name a few.


Implications for Global Economic Development


If correct in our assertion that forces driving our quest for agricultural sustainability are

also, in large part, driving us toward the industrialization of agriculture, there are some

profound implications for economic development--especially if the current trend toward

privatization and openness continues. It now looks as though we are moving toward an

environment of greater security for private international investments in developing countries.

If this is true, developmental assistance will come increasingly through private investments in

less-developed countries. There will be exploitive aspects of such investments. Indigenous

human-capital capacities to guide and monitor external investments have improved in many

developing countries. However, these capacities remain quite inadequate in terms of the need.

Also, multi-national and other large firms are increasingly operating in an environment where

the world is watching--the CNN effect. Governments will be increasingly pressured to produce

public goods which help to keep transaction costs low with an efficient set of ground rules that

are sensitive to issues of sustainability.








Joint Ventures Between Governments and the Private Sector


The development of a sustainable agricultural system will require both public and

private input. A satisfactory resolution of the issues will require joint efforts in an rather open

public-hearing type environment that is sensitive to distributional, social, and environmental

interests. This is a difficult challenge and an area where development assistance from both

government and non-government organizations can play a hands-on role in countries with

inadequate public-sector capacity to fully study the issues. Indeed, some undeveloped countries

are pleading for help. For example, President Cheddi Jagan recently called for such assistance

in developing the interior of Guyana.6 He was arguing that his country could not afford to

leave its interior in its near natural state. However, he fully recognizes the need to use this

large portion of Guyana in a responsible and sustainable way which would be sensitive to the

needs of the indigenous population. He extended an invitation for external help. A problem

is that there is a broad recognition of the need to use and preserve resources in a sustainable

way, but little real insights in just how to do it.


Technical Assistance from Private Sector


With additional private investment this sector can and will provide much of the

developmental assistance needed in the technical areas of production and marketing. The quest

for intellectual property right will also encourage a continuation in the trend toward more




6Presentation at the Hemispheric Conference on Agribusiness in the Americas in
conjunction with the 18th Annual Miami Conference on the Caribbean and Latin America,
December 11-15, 1994.








research being conducted and/or funded in the private sector. This will also be true in

developing countries where added research will help protect investments. Research will offer

another area for joint public/private activity. Private agri-business companies on the input side

of agriculture will also play an active role in providing and/or assuring more adequate capital.


Implications for Global Sustainable Development


We began the last major section assuming that the trend toward privatization and

openness continues. If it does not, the future does not look very hopeful for the world's poor.

We come to this position from the rather dismal past performances of closed and

bureaucratically controlled economies where most of the poor live (Kruger). Such economies

do not have a very good track record of being responsive to human rights or the needs of the

poor and the environment. They have, however, done a good job of encouraging high rates

of population growth. In short, the performance of economies in such circumstances have not

been encouraging for the achievement of sustainability objectives.

While we see the privatization and economic openness phenomena as fundamental

ingredients in the agricultural industrialization process, we none-the-less recognize that such

processes could create significant positive as well as negative effects from a global sustainable

development perspective. Privatization and openness as components of a global agricultural

industrialization process are rapidly gaining ascendancy as development strategies. These

trends are antithetical to the strategies of discouraging private initiatives in production and

encouraging state owned enterprises which was dominant in many countries during the early

1960s and 1970s. Privatization of the agricultural sector in the South as a concomitant part









of the global agricultural industrialization phenomenon has involved specific elements,

inclusive of: (1) cessation of public programs and disengagement of government from specific

responsibilities (2) sales of public assets, including public lands, public infrastructure and

public enterprises (3) financing private provision of services through contracting, etc., and (4)

deregulating entry into activities that were previously traded as a public monopoly (Bienen and

Waterburg; Davis, 1993). How do the privatization, openness, scale, and other dimensions of

the agricultural industrialization process impact the attainment of global sustainable

development objectives? We argue that the specific effects of the process will be manifested

in large part via how the characteristics of the market-place interacts with the public policy

framework which governs how firms (and industries) go about making their pricing and

production decisions (Ghatak and Ingersent).7

The characteristics of the interactions between agricultural industrialization-related

market forces and agricultural sustainability objectives are likely to occur in a dynamic nexus

between and among: (1) economic growth (scale) effects (2) equity (income distribution or

poverty) effects and (3) agriculture-related environmental assets integrity effects. A basic

assertion of this paper is that while the agricultural industrialization process and the quest for

global sustainable agriculture systems are consequences of a set of similar forces, that it might

be costly from both a socioeconomic and an ecological point of view, to assume that economic




7It is this interaction between market characteristics and the public policy framework that
gives meaning to the performance criteria. Many developing countries pursue privatization
strategies on the assumption that it will improve technical and allocative efficiencies in the
agricultural sector. However, there is no direct theoretical economic linkage between allocative
efficiency and the ownership or control of resources. Allocative efficiency simply requires that
factors be combined in the same ratios as their relative prices.

16








growth (scale), equity improvement (poverty reduction) and environmental quality parameters

move in lock-step with each other. These elements can, and often do conflict at least while

we are in a learning-by-doing mode, and we now turn to identifying some areas of potential

conflict.

A substantial (but by no means exclusive) set of the issues relating to potential growth,

equity, and environmental quality conflicts has to do with market and/or policy failures. The

welfare implications of market or policy failures under the agricultural industrialization

phenomenon are real, and could be horrendous for all societies, but more so for developing

countries. Market failure exists when social costs or benefits diverge from private costs or

benefits. Policy failure exists when: (1) the public sector fails to redress market failure through

legal, regulatory, economic or other means when it is clearly feasible to do so or (2) when

public sector activity magnifies existing market failures (Miranda and Muzondo). The key

determinants of potential market and or policy failures that are likely to compromise the

convergence of economic growth, equity improvement (poverty reduction) and environmental

sustainability under agricultural industrialization are: (1) the nature of the economic growth

path, (2) the level, source, and pattern of agricultural sector productivity, (3) the state of

knowledge, and (4) the levels of economic efficiency (technical and allocative) and the

avoidance of waste in agricultural resource use. It is imperative that private sector-driven

sustainable agricultural development cum poverty reduction growth paths, passes through

undistorted, competitive-like, and well-functioning factor and product markets (Davis 1993,

1994).









It is argued that the prevailing configuration of markets and policy regimes under which

developing countries operate, result in dissociation between resource scarcity and price, benefits

and costs, rights and responsibilities, actions and consequences (Panayotou). Countries in the

South are becoming increasingly cognizant of the signals being sent via the division of world

markets into regional trading blocks (EU, NAFTA, AFTA MERCOSUR, APEC) that their

survival in global markets is going to be based largely on increased competitiveness. However,

the reality is that under the configuration of existing markets in many developing countries,

many resources are outside the domain of markets. Under these conditions, the market

configuration acts as a subsidy by general taxpayers to the excessive use, waste, inefficient

allocation, resource depletion and degradation of these extra-market resources. As such, tax

transfers prevent resource prices from rising in line with growing resource scarcity and rising

social costs. Thus, they dilute the cost of increasing resource scarcity and foster the types of

dissociations referred above, which are the basis of market and or policy failures.

The tendency of market configuration to generate dissociations and hence market and

or policy failures, can be compromised by institutional reforms and policy intervention

mechanisms. It is within this context that the argument was made that, "A market failure is

nothing but a policy failure, one step removed" (Panayotou, p.357). We are in agreement with

this argument. We thus take the position that whether there is convergence or divergence

among the economic growth (scale), equity improvement, and sustainability of environmental

assets elements under agricultural industrialization, is going to depend to a large extent on: (1)

early recognition on the part of countries that the state can play a critical role in shaping and

directing developmental goals and outcomes via public policy and (2) that public policy as a








facilitator of private sector driven welfare gains, is only effective to the extent that associated

policy instruments are effective. It is increasingly being recognized that policy failure, like

market failure, is essentially microeconomic in nature. As such, they can be effectively

addressed via new microeconomic instruments and or recalibration of existing microeconomic

instruments (Miranda and Muzondo).

The debate surrounding the convergence-divergence issue among elements of economic

growth, equity improvement (poverty reduction), and agricultural sustainability in developing

countries was recently captured in the observation that, "Developing of countries that are

struggling to escape poverty and meet the growing aspirations of their still-expanding

populations find that concern for sustainability an added burden on what is already a Herculean

task" (Panayotou, p.355). In analyzing the growth, equity, sustainability issue, Panayotou

comes to the conclusion that sustainable development as a concept implies benefits to both

current and future generations. Two key questions regarding the meaning of sustainability

served to inform that conclusion. One question is whether sustainability means Spartan living

by the current generation of the poor so the next generation of the poor will have a better

standard of living, and if that is the case, where is inter-generational justice. The other

question is whether sustainability means that future generations should enjoy the same level

of poverty as the current generation, and if that is the case, why sustain poverty.

The above argument is further advanced that poverty reduction (equity improvement)

and sustainable development objectives have the potential for convergence as the system moves

along a trajectory. It is suggested that sustained economic growth is a key conduit for poverty

reduction, and the latter is critical for the attainment of sustainable agricultural development









(Vyas). We are in agreement with this argument. As such, we explicitly reject the notion that

economic growth (scale) as a phenomenon, is congenitally linked to degradation of

environmental assets. The converse would also hold, that non-growth is congenitally linked

to the preservation of the quality of environmental assets. Davis (1992, 1993, 1994) expanded

on and applied similar arguments advanced by Panayotou and Vyas to the situation in the

Caribbean. He concluded that it is the source and patterns of certain factors that accompany

either economic growth or non-growth that is the major correlate of decline in environmental

assets over time, and that these combined factors reflect either market and or policy failures.

Under agricultural industrialization trends, a major source of potential market and or

policy failures that might be associated with economic growth (scale) is the level, source, and

pattern of agricultural sector productivity. The orientation of agricultural technology practices

is not neutral with respect to economic efficiency (technical and allocative efficiencies).

Depending on the stage of modernization of the agricultural sector, the technological package

could to varying degrees, affect the technical (productive) efficiency of the agricultural sector

in ways that could profoundly impact environmental quality and income distribution. Current

agricultural technology practices are heavily oriented toward increases in productivity (in terms

of yields) via intensive energy such as chemical fertilizer, pesticides and fungicides. Although

agricultural research programs are giving increasing attention to the development and adoption

of technologies that generate sustained increases in productivity with decreasing dependency

on chemical energy, much remains to be done. This is particularly true in many less-developed

countries where both the economic realities and the general educational levels lead to less

social concern for the potential effects of residual chemicals in the environment. We believe









that, in such countries, greater economic development is a necessary condition for a level of

public concern for the environment that will support the attainment of a sustainable agricultural

system.

Pomarada Benel (1991) argues that commodity-oriented chemical intensive technology

attempts to indirectly increase the marginal productivity of rural labor by displacement of labor

from rural areas. This process is accomplished by the substitution of chemical energy for

human energy. Such a technological orientation could increase the incidence of rural poverty

via increased levels of rural unemployment in many countries. The point being made, is that

greater complementarily among growth (scale), equity, and environmental assets integrity,

could be accomplished by conscious public sector-facilitated policies and programs (with

private sector support) which seeks to harmonize the use of human and non-human energy in

the agricultural technology practices in developing countries.

In more developed countries, there is less pressure on the agricultural sectors as a source

of rural employment of landless labor. However, agriculture has an image problem in that this

sector is viewed as one of special interests with too little concern for the environment. This

image problem is likely to become more pervasive with the industrialization of agriculture even

though an agriculture with larger firms and better management is probably necessary to attain

sustainability through scale economies.

From a sustainability perspective, it is in the interest of agriculture to work jointly with

environmental interests in resolving issues. Parties to the debate need to admit that they are

very much in a learning mode as how to attain sustainability, that they all have legitimate








interests in this issue, and that they all must become concerned and involved in learning and

operationalizing the processes needed to attain the goal of sustainability.

One important component of the sustainability puzzle is that the poor, who will

increasingly reside in urban areas, need an abundant (low-priced) supply of nutritious food on

a sustained basis. An industrialized agriculture with modern organization and management

tools and precision production techniques has an important role to play. And as Schmidheiny

has pointed out, in playing this role profits are not incompatible with sustainability. However,

we hasten to point out that a negative growth rate in multi-factor productivity is incompatible

with sustainability in a situation of increasing population as we will likely be in well into the

twenty-first century. To assure positive growth in productivity to accommodate this increasing

population without exploiting resources needed to assure sustainability, we must exploit

potential productivity gains from increased scale of activity.

Economic concentration also represents a substantial part of the potential for divergence

in the growth (scale), equity, environment assets quality dimensions of welfare gains associated

with agricultural industrialization. Such concentration could come about through corporate

mergers, acquisitions, and other forms of market consolidation. It is critical that developing

countries in their quest for complementarily among economic growth, equity improvement, and

sustainable environmental assets, bear in mind the basic rule that every policy goal must have

a policy instrument (Tinbergen). Conscious efforts to reorient the agricultural technology

practices globally must have their own policy instruments and these instruments must be

consistent with other macroeconomic and microeconomic policy instruments. One

characteristic that appears to be critical for convergence of strategy goals in developing








countries is one that has been referred to as "inclusionary" growth and development strategies.

Inclusionary strategies, "requires combinations of intervention directed toward structural

change, active social welfare programs, and simultaneous attraction to private incentives and

macro-economic constraints" (Sheahan, p.40). Sheahan also argues that inclusionary growth

and development strategies require not only consistency in policy instruments, but that the non-

poor actively participate in and enjoy security from the gains in growth.


Concluding Remarks


Agricultural industrialization trends and the quest for sustainable agricultural systems

are contemporary issues of global importance. The concerns expressed regarding the processes

associated with both trends appear not to be ephemeral. There appear to be a permanent shift

in public attitudes with respect to the social welfare gains associated with these phenomena.

As such, the issues associated with the processes are likely to rank high on the

agriculture/natural resource policy agenda well into the twenty-first century. Agricultural

economists have much to offer to the policy dialogue and to pragmatic policy formulation on

the issues. Their rich tradition of applied economic analysis and public policy orientation

should serve to make the profession well-positioned to make substantive contributions to the

problems associated with the trends. It is clear, however, that the profession will only be able

to make significant policy contributions, to the extent that it recognizes that these trends will

necessitate changes in the traditional boundaries of farm firms, and thus of the food and fiber

and natural resource issues. As such, its analytical paradigms (models) and approaches must

by necessity, reflect a new perspective on the policy formulation process and performance









indicators for the global food and fiber system. We have attempted in this paper to take a first

step in this direction, by addressing some of the conceptual dimensions of the issues resulting

from these highly interrelated processes. We challenge the profession to continue the journey.

We see the agricultural industrialization trend and sustainable agriculture quest as both

consequences of similar global forces. We also see the two processes as finding manifestation

at a nexus of interaction between the three elements: (1) economic growth or scale (2) income

distribution or equity and (3) agriculture and natural resource quality. The agricultural

industrialization process will provide opportunities for improvements in these three elements

on a global basis. However, convergence of the three elements is not automatic, and we have

attempted to identify and elaborate on factors contributing to non-convergence (divergence).

It is doubtful if we can overestimate the impact of the information and openness

explosions on the development processes. Information like all inputs is not without costs and

there are great potential economic benefits including economies of scale to those who can

access and navigate the "information highway" in an open global setting. It will facilitate

large-scale, precision farming that will lead to productivity gains and lower resource costs and

will increasingly lead to a greater separation of the management and labor functions in

agriculture. Fear of the size and distributional consequences will make it politically difficult

for developing countries to embrace these trends--especially those which have a history of

colonial rule and an estate culture. However, for long-term development in a competitive and

sustainable way these countries will not be able to ignore scale economies.

A major policy implication flowing from our assessment is that there is an altered role

for the public sector in the new era of reconciling agricultural industrialization objectives with








those of agricultural sustainability. This altered role will be one of qualitative improvement

in the intervention capacity of the public sector as it attempts to implement development

strategies. Qualitative improvement in this capacity would cover areas such as: (1) the

function of the public sector (2) the administrative structure (3) the procedures used and (4)

the skills and management systems required. Within the context of this improved capacity,

high priority must be given to setting in place policy instruments and institutional reforms that

compromise market and/or policy failures. Such policy instruments much originate from joint

public sector, private sector and "grassroots" elements of those whose behavior we are trying

to change. Some of the important instruments and reforms would include: (1) elimination of

direct and indirect subsidies, giveaways, and public projects that promote environmental

degradation and pollution (2) ensure that the cost of environmental degradation and pollution

is borne by those who generate them and derive the benefits, rather than the general taxpayers

(3) develop the institutional entities that would expedite efficient functioning of environmental

and resource markets (4) create and ensure market-based economic incentives and disincentive

and structures to internalize externalities (5) subject public and private projects to rigorous

scrutiny and environmental assessment and (6) develop a natural resource accounting

framework to be used in conjunction with an economic accounting framework to evaluate

welfare gains.








References


Barkema, Alan, Mark Drabenstott, and M.L. Cook. "The Industrialization of the U.S. Food
System," Food and Agricultural Marketing Issues for the 21 st Century. Edited by
Daniel I. Padberg, Food and Agricutural Marketing Consortium, FAMC 93-1, Texas
A&M University, College Station TX, 1993.

Barry, Peter J., Steven T. Sonka, and Kaouthar Lajili. "Vertical Coordination, Financial
Structure, and the Changing Theory of the Firm." American Journal of Agricultural
Econonics. 74(1992):1219-1225.

Batie, Sandra S. "Sustainable Development: Challenges to the Profession of Agricultural
Economics." American Journal ofAgricultural Economics. 71(1989):1083-1101.

Bienen, Henry, and John Waterburg. "The Political Economy of Privatization in Developing
Countries". World Development. 17.5(1989):617-628.

Castle, Emery N., Robert P. Berrens, and Stephen Polasky. "Sustainability and Ecological
Economics: Ephemeral Trend or Bedrock Development?" Paper presented at the 1993
American Agricultural Economics Meeting, San Diego, California, August 7-10, 1993.

Cernea, Michael M. "The Sociologist's Approach to Sustainable Development." Finance &
Development. (December 1993):11-13.

Council on Food, Agriculture and Resource Economics (C-FARE) "Industrialization of U.S.
Agriculture: Policy, Research, and Education Needs." Washington, D.C.: April,
1994a.

"The Industrialization of Agriculture: Policy, Research, and Education Needs
A Symposium." Washington, D.C.: July, 1994b.

Daly, Herman. "Allocation, Distribution, and Scale: Towards an Economics that is Efficient,
Just, and Sustainable." Ecological Economics. 6(1992):185-193

Davis, Carlton G. "Sustainable Agricultural Development in the Caribbean: Some Conceptual
and Process Dimensions". Food and Resource Economics Department, International
Working Paper Series, IW92-11, University of Florida, July 1992.

Davis, Carlton G. "Sustainable Development, Poverty Reduction, and Agricultural Sector
Privatization in the Developing World: Whether the Complementarily?" Food and
Resource Economics Department, International Working Paper Series, IW93-2,
University of Florida, February 1993.









Davis, Carlton G. "Poverty Reduction and Sustainable Agricultural Development in the
Caribbean: The Conflict and Convergence Dilemma". Farm and Business. 2(1994):29-
41.

Denison, Edward F. Accounting for United States Economic Growth 1929-1969. Washington,
D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 1974.

Food and Agriculture Organization, Technical Advisory Committee (FAO/TAC). Sustainable
Agricultural Production: Implications for International Agricultural Research.
Washington, D.C.: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, 1989.

Ghatak, Subrata, and Ken Ingersent. Agriculture and Economic Development. Baltimore,
Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984.

Henderson, Dennis R., and Charles R. Handy. "Globalization of the Food Industry." Food
and Agricultural Marketing Issues for the 21 st Century. Edited by Daniel I. Padberg,
Food and Agricutural Marketing Consortium, FAMC 93-1, Texas A&M University,
College Station TX, 1993.

Johnson, D. Gale. "Effects of Institutions and Policies on Rural Population Growth with
Application to China." Population and Development Review. 20(1994a):503-31.

"Limited but Essential Role of Government in Agriculture and Rural Life."
Elmhirst Memorial Lecture, XXIII International Conference of Agricultural Economists,
Harare, Zimbabwe, August 22, 1994b.

Krueger, Anne O. Political Economy of Policy Reform in Developing Countries. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1993.

Krugman, Paul. Geography and Trade. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1991.

Miranda, Kenneth, and Timothy Muzondo. "Public Policy and the Environment". Finance
and Development. (June 1991):25-27.

Munasinghe, Mohan. "The Economist's Approach to Sustainable Development." Finance &
Development. (December 1993):16-19.

Office of International Studies and Programs. Reconciling Sustainability with Productivity
Growth. Gainesville: Final Report of the May 1993 Workshop Co-sponsored by the
University of Florida and Cornell University, March 1994.

Panayotou, Theodore. "Is Economic Growth Sustainable?" Proceedings of the World Bank
Annual Conference on Development Economics 1991. Washington, D.C.: The World
Bank, 1992.









Papanek, Gustav F., and Dorojatun Kuntjoro-Jakti. "The Poor of Jakarta." Economic
Development and Cultural Change. 24(October 1975):1-27.

Pomarenda Benel, Carlos. "Public Policy and Institutional Challenges in the Achievement of
Sustainable Agriculture". Paper presented at the International Conference on Ecological
Economics of Sustainability: Making Local and Short Term Goals Consistent with
Global and Long Term Goals, World Bank, Washington D.C., May 21-23, 1990. Costa
Rica: IICA Technical Event Series ISSN-0253-4746, March 1991.

Rees, Colin. "The Ecologist's Approach to Sustainable Development." Finance &
Development. (December 1993):14-15.

Schmidheiny, Stephan. "The Business of Sustainable Development." Finance & Development.
(December 1992):24-27.

Serageldin, Ismail. "Making Development Sustainable." Finance & Development. (December
1993):6-10.

Sheahan, John. "Reducing Poverty in Latin America: Markets, Democracy, and Social
Change". Department of Economics, Center for Development Economics, Research
Memorandum No. RM-119. Williams College, March 1990.

Simon, Herbert A.. "Organizations and Markets." Journal of Economic Perspectives. 5(Spring
1991):25-44.

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. New York:
The Random House, Inc., 1937.

Steer, Andrew, and Ernst Lutz. "Measuring Environmentally Sustainable Development."
Finance & Development. (December 1993):20-23.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. "Symposium on Organizations and Economics." Journal of Economic
Perspectives. 5(Spring 1991):15-24.

Tinbergen, Jan. On the Theory of Economic Policy. Amsterdam: North Holland Press, 1952.

van Ravenswaay, Eileen. "Linkages Between Agricultural Marketing and Environmental
Policies." Food and Agricultural Marketing Issues for the 21 st Century. Edited by
Daniel I. Padberg, Food and Agricultural Marketing Consortium, FAMC 93-1, Texas
A&M University, College Station TX, 1993.

Vyas, Vijay. "Agrarian Structure, Environmental Concerns and Rural Poverty". Elmhirst
Memorial Lecture, XXI International Conference of Agricultural Economists, Tokyo,
Japan, August 22-29, 1991.









World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1987.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs