A REPORT OF '111im SASAIMA SIMiINAR ON RURAL I1.)LVIOIiHNrf
During the first week of May, 1974, the agricultural program staffs of the.
Foundation's Offices for Latin America and the Caribbean and the Middle East
and Africa met in Ibadan, Nigeria, to review questions of professional and pro-
gram relevance. A number of the participants from the Latin American staff
were dissatisfied with discussions of that seminar which dealt directly with
rural development on the grounds that they failed to delineate the subject area
and indicate the kinds of Foundation programs which might fit into it. Also,
important.differences were evidenced in definitions, assumptions, language, and
modes of analysis which seemed to prevent the sort of interpersonal communica-
tion around the rural development theme that the Foundation's Latin American
agricultural program staff enjoys in other subject areas, particularly in agri-
A second seminar was agreed to for the purpose of trying to overcome some
of these differences and to move toward a greater consensus concerning the mean-
ing of rural development and its possible implications for Foundation programs.
The seminar was ultimately held in Sasaima,.Colombia, for two days in mid-July.
A list of participants is appended to this report. Nine members of the Founda-
tion's staff attended, along with seven Colombians (primarily from the Colombian
Agricultural Institute, ICA); a Peruvian; and one staff member from the Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics at the University of California (Berkeley), the
*This report suffered from being written three months after the-seminar but
benefited from very excellent notes taken of the proceedings by Norman Collins,
Alain de Janvry, Jim Himes, and Ismael Kochin.
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), and the. International De-
velopment Research Center (IDRC). Alsolattached is a copy of the program for.
the two days of meetings.
The first day was devoted to discussions of available socioeconomic data
on three rural development projects in Latin America with which the Foundation
is involved: the Puebla Project in Mexico, the Garcia Rovira Project in Colombia,
and the Cajamarca Project in Peru. In examining this information, the following
kinds, of questions were addressed by papers prepared by Santiago Friedmann (Puebla),
Ismael Rochin (Garcia Rovira), and Efrain Franco (Cajamarca). Who are small-
holders? What is tlie organization of their farms and families? What objectives
and constraints operate within that organization? What have smallholders' re-
sponses been to change agents operating through the rural development projects?
What have those change agents been? How effective have they been, and how have
they been organized?
After assessing existing strategies, current needs in the rural development
field were discussed on the second day. In the last hours of the seminar, an
attempt was made to identify those needs which might be addressed by the Founda-
tion, given its comparative advantages in assisting .with problem definition and
supporting research and training activities.
This report, like the seminar, is divided into tw. .principal parts. The
one which follows draws on the papers by Franco, Friedmann, and Rochin and at-
tempts to highlight major impressions ("observations" or "conclusions" would
apply as well in some cases) about the three rural development projects. Since
participants in the main were critical of these projects, the impressions listed
are.themselves rather negative and critical.. The last section of the report re-
lates to discussions of the second day--namely, those dealing with program
aj or Impressions
As available socioeconomic data on.,;each of the three rural development
projects were presented, similarities emerged which either strongly supported
or rejected available literature and data on small farmers and processes of
rural development. It is these similarities, confirming or contrasting with
current wisdom, which are recorded here as "major impressions."
Low Rates of Adoption.--Data presented by Friedmann on the Puebla Project
and by Franco on Cajamarca--similar data.being available on Garcia Rovira--
point toward low rates of adoption of "improved technologies." Friedmann re-
ported that, after four years, only 11 percent of all farmers had adopted the
Puebla Project recommendations (these-included recommendations with respect to
seeding densities and the rate and timing of chemical fertilizer applications
for corn in four project subregions). The comparable figure reported by Franco
for Cajamaca .was 0.16 percent after two years of project operations (recommenda-
tions related to seed type and to levels of chemical fertilizer application for
corn, wheat, and barley).
Are small farmers reluctant adopters?/ Or do low rates of adoption re-
flect the fact that the "improved".practices recommended.by the rural develop-
ment projects are not particularly profitable?- Or are practices profitable
and farmers willing adopters, but are the complementary resources (e.g., credit)
and new inputs unavailable by reason of institutional and/or other nonagroeco-
nomic constraints? None of the three.projects currently has replies to these
1/ For an excellent discussion of this view, see F. Cancian, "Stratirication
and Risk-Taking: A Theory Tested on Agricultural Innovations," American Socio-
logical Review, Vol. 32, No. 6 (December, 1967), pp. 912-927.
2/ One of the original studies of the profitability hypothesis was done by
Zvi Griliches, "Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological
Change," Econometrica, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Qctober, 1957), pp. 501-523.
Agriculture's Uni[Tportance to Small Farmers.--Strategies of the rural
development projects focus on improving technology on a limited set of crops.
While the crops chosen are important components of the value of crop produc-
tion in each project area, incomes derived from crops--and from agriculture
generally--appear to be a much smaller proportion of total income of small
farmers than would have been expected on the basis of available literature.-
In the case of Cajamarca, the value of crop production represents only
14 percent of gross farm income from all sources for farms in the smallest size
class (3.5 hectares or less).-2 The most important single source of income for
these farms is wages and salaries, the largest part of which (62 percent) is
earned outside agriculture. Total income derived from agriculture (including
crop and livestock production, agricultural labor incomes, and .transfers within
the agricultural sector) is only 38 percent of income reported from all sources
by smali farms. As the size of farms increases in Cajamarca,- two things happen
to this figure: (1) it increases to a level of 67-84 percent, and (2) its com-
position changes with the share represented by livestock production increasing.
Data available on Puebla indicate that total crop production represented
only 35.5 percent of all farm family incomes in 1970.- These data are not
currently available by farm size class;'income derived from agriculture as a
1/ See, for example, Bruce F. Johnston, "Agriculture and Structural Trans-
formation in Developing Countries: A Survey of Research," Journal of Economic
Literature, Vol. 8, No. 2 (June, 1970), pp. 369-398.
2/ Proyecto Piloto Cajamarca-La Libertad, "Estudio de Diagno.stico Socio-
economico del Area de Influencia del Proyecto Piloto Cajamarca-La Libertad"
(first draft, August, 1974, Table,3).
3/ The Cajamarca diagnostic excluded farms in the area with 100 or more
4/ Puebla Project, "The Puebla Project: Seven Years of Experience, 1967-73"
(unpublished manuscript, 1974), Table 10.1.
proportion of gross farm income is likewise unavailable; and it may-be that the
35.5 percent figure cited is not strictly comparable with the data on Cajamarca.-
Still, there is the inference that crop production is surprisingly unimportant
to small farmers in Puebla in terms of its contribution to their total income.
Rochin reported, in the case of Garcia Rovira, that "there are no precise figures
on how much income is earned from each economic.activity."2/ however, he did
note that 86 percent of all heads of families in the area claimed to be employed
primarily on their own lands. This information, of course, would be consistent
with agriculture's relative unimportance as a source of income were on-farm re-
turns lower than those earned off the farm. And, if that were the case, there
might be the additional inference that on-farm employment is only a marginal
or residual use of labor time of small farmers.--
Much more data and analysis are needed, however, on (1) incomes by source
and (2) employment and labor productivity by activity before such inferences can
Low rates of adoption of project-recommended technologies and the apparent
unimportance of crop production to small farmers suggest that the direct effects
of the rural development projects on incomes may have been small. These effects
need to be quantified in each case, however, and compared with costs, carefully
1/ Substantially more attention and resources appear to have been devoted to
.estimates of farm income in the case of Cajamarca. The Puebla data on income
are not fully defined in the source cited.
2/ R. I. Rochin, "I n;igiihts Into the Socio-economic Basis for Rural Develop-
ment: The Case of Garcia Rovira, Colombia," Paper prepared for the Ford Founda-
tion Agricultutral Advisors Serinar on Rural Development, Sasaima, Colombia,
July 19 and 20, 1974, p. 10.
3/ A number of interesting hypotheses flow from this proposition. One, for
example, would be that a rural development project could have an important ef-
fect on wages and/or salaries of small farmers-even if they do not adopt the
accounted for. It. might be shown, for example, that Puebla, Cajamarca, and
Garcia Rovira are cost effective, even 'though their impact on farm incomes has
Large Indirect Project Effects.--Whatever the direct income effects of the
projects may be, it appears that some nonincome, indirect effects have been
large. Puebla can now claim success in sponsoring.similar projects throughout
Latin America--perhaps even within Mexico itself where rural development proj-
ects are now operating with Puebla-like models-in the states of Mexico and
Tlaxcala, and others are on the drawing boards in 17 different regions--and in
contributing to a "conscientization" with respect to small subsistence farmers.
In Colombia the 6 initial pilot projects, of which Garcia Rovira was one, have
led to 24 more rural development projects and a complete reallocation of re-
sources within ICA which is responsible for public programs of agricultural
research, extension, and education. They may have also contributed to the
creation of a graduate program in rural development at the ICA/National Univer-
sity Graduate School. In the case of Peru, nonincome, indirect effects of
Cajamarca appear to have been rather more modest, although the Project was
instrumental in the decision to open two new rural development projects and to
establish, within the Cajamarca area, an experiment station.
Isolation.--The background papers and literature cited on Cajamarca, Garcia
Rovira, and Puebla make each of the three rural development projects vulnerable
to criticisms of intellectual isolation.
I/ Two cost-benefit: analyses are, in fact, available for the Puebla Project
including one contained in Chapter 14 of the 1974 manuscript cited earlier,
Puebla Project, op. cit., and one authored by Delbert Myren and Jairo Cano,
"Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Puebla Project," in Strategies for Increasing
Agricultural Production on Small Holdings (Mexico: CIMMYT, 1969). These analy-
ses could be refined, however, and then extended to others of'the rural develop-
ment projects for which cost-benefit analyses are yet unavailable. More is said
about this at a later point in this report.
One such criticism is that the projects do not appear to have benefited
from the accumulated wisdom, lessons, an'd experiences of others with similar
kinds of objectives. Nowhere, for example, in the seven-year.review document
on Puebla is a reference made to Mexico's long history of experience with land
reform, colonization, and irrigation projects and the fact that Puebla's value
might be measured in terms of its contribution over and above that which would
have obtained had, say, an irrigation project been put in the Puebla area.
Another criticism is .that the projects are isolated one from the other.
This seems to be true, for example, within Colombia and as between projects in
Colombia, Peru, and Mexico. Mechanisms like ALADER and the Ford-Rockefeller
grants to the University of California at Berkeley may help reduce this isola-
tion at a regional level. The creation within ICA last year of a submanager
for rural development and a couple of'divisions concerned with evaluating and
coordinating efforts among individual Colombian rural development projects may
be beneficial at the national level; COCOSA should have similar effects in the
case of Mexico. Still, there is an impression that interproject relations are
Finally, there is the criticism made by de Janvry that the projects have
isolated themselves from the dynamics of development in the project areas, in
other sectors of agriculture, in other economic activities, and in the world
economic system. The proposition was stated in his paper in the following way:
"The induced influx of technologies from the Green Revolution
through small farmer projects has been looked at as permitting
a break with .the low-level equilibrium trap and shifting, sub-
sistence peasants to the blessed status of commercial farmers.
Focussing rural poverty in this context is, in my view, an his-
torical inconsistency. . On-the contrary, it needs to be
done in the context of the economic destruction of traditional
societies after the first industrial revolution in England; of
the barriers to industrialization, especially after the second
industrial revolution in the 20th century; of unequal commercial
exchange between imperi.li st: and dependent nations and the con-
sequent need for low wagcs in the periphery; of the exhaustion of
import substitution policies to promote industrialization and the
transformation of industry into an economic and social enclave in
the 1960's; and of the resulting reinforcement of structural dual-
ism and marginalization of large sections of society. . Rural
poverty should be analyzed in the framework of marginality instead
of traditional culture."1/
The Cajamarca "diagnostic" has been criticized in these terms for providing only
a snapshot,of the current state of poverty in the region and neglecting to con-
sider the historical conditions which produced that poverty over time. This
criticism would applywith greaterforce, however, to research on Garcia Rovira
"Pilot" Proj ects--A Misnomer.--Observed problems with the continuity of
project staffs; with the design of experiments (socioeconomic and agronomic);
with overall project organization, coordination, and planning; with intellec-
tual isolation of some of the projects; and with therformidable and still un-
resolved problems 'encountered in socioeconomic data collection 'and analysis--
all.suggest that some of the pilot programs (as'most of the rural development
projects have been termed) have not been assigned resources of the quality and
quantity necessary to ensure that learning through systematic experimentation
Several hypotheses can be entertained to explain why this has been so.
One would be that there were ways of making the projects truly pilot endeavors
but not the will to do so. Under this hypothesis, the major objective of the
I / Alain de Janvry, "The Political Economy of Rural Development-Projects in
Latin America" (unpublished manuscript, July, 1974, pp. 1 and 2).
2/ The problems are identified and-discussed in the last 12 pages of the
Cajamarca diagnostic; in the case of Garcia Rovira, they are highlighted by
Rochin, "Integrated Rural Development: Lessons from the Colombian Experience,"
Paper presented at the Ford Foundation Seminar of Program Advisors in Agricul-
ture (Ibadan: IITA, 1974); and, in the case of Puebla, Friedman focused on
these problems during.his oral presentation.
rural, development projects is seen to be one of proving that available, new
biochemical technologies, supplemented by institutional credit, will be adopted
by small farmers and lead to increases in incomes and improved conditions of
life. Another hypothesis would be that there was the will but not the way to
make the projects effective pilot endeavors because the human and financial
resources required to sustain a truly experimental effort were found to be un-
available. Stress is laid in this regard on the availability of qualitatively
relevant human resources--trained in and capable of handling problems of rural
poverty A final hypothesis would be that there was a will and a way.but
that the problems evidenced by the rural development projects were symptoms of
poorly articulated project objectives; that objectives were poorly-articulated
because there was little appreciation for what is really needed for small farmers
to develop; and-that there was little appreciation for what is needed because
there was an incomplete understanding of how poor farmers got to be poor. With-
out a theory to explain and help understand the dynamics of poverty, project
activities were bound to flounder and become less purposeful and effective.
Other Impressions.--Below are listed three impressions derived from discus-
sions which did not occupy, perhaps, as much.time at the seminar--and, hence,
are presented here apart from the rest 'and rather summarily--but which were
judged to have been of importance nonetheless.
1/ The first of these two hypotheses appears to be most relevant to the
case of Puebla, Garcia Rovira, and the other five ICA rural development pilot
projects, while the second hypothesis may be most relevant to Cajamarca. In
the seminar there was also some discussion as to whether the :rural development
projects were really mechanisms for social control or "incorporation."
1. Criteria seem to be lacking currently which would provide the
basis for judging when a project has been successful, when
its mission has been completed, and when its activities
should be terminated.
2. Not unrelated to the preceding point is the fact that criteria
used in choosing among alternative rural development sites have
not been made explicit. If the reasons for making interventions
in a particular geographic area were more explicit., so, too,
undoubtedly would be the conditions for withdrawal.
3. The rural development projects have extremely high profiles
within the community of international assistance agencies--an
impression which really only extends an earlier one that certain
indirect effects of the projects have been large.
A number of research needs of the rural development projects are suggested
directly by the preceding section, and they might be divided into four or five
One would be.analyses of adoption rates of recommended practices by small-
holders which sought to explain specifically the low rates of acceptance of
recommendations made by the rural.development projects. Attention would be
given in these studies to the effects on adoption of the characteristics of the
technology recommended; on-farm determinants of the responses.of farmers to new
1/ These reflect more the views of the author of this report than those of
the participants in the Sasaima seminar. The agenda did not call for a discus-
sion of "research priorities" and little discussion, except for some extra-
seminar sessions, related directly to them.
production opportunities; and intervening institutional, cultural, and socio-
political factors--those nonagrocconomia elements referred to in a previous
section of this report.
'Another set of studies is needed which would carefully quantify incomes
of smallholders and.their family members by principal source and estimate em-
ployment rates and labor productivity by major farm and off-farm activity.
The essential purposes of these studies would be to provide a better under-
standing of when and why crops become unimportant to small farmers as a source
of income and how a change in crop technology would affect the small farm
family, its income, and the allocation of its available labor time. Since
searching for, obtaining, and then using a new production technology are time-
consuming activities, which may result in some loss of income, the suggested
research on the determinants of adoption might be related in important ways to
studies 'of income and employment. For this reason, plus the fact that com-
parability of income and employment data should be maintained as between proj-
ects, it would seem essential that there existed opportunities for-cross-study
and cross-project discussions and dialogue in both the adoption and the income
and employment work.
A third area of research would include benefit-cost analyses of existing
and planned rural development projects. These would be done less for the pur-
pose of calculating social investment yields per se than for purposes of check-
ing the sensitivity of expected project outcomes to particular assumptions,
identifying areas for profitable in-depth socioeconomic research, and sharpening
the specification of project plans and priorities. Because there is not avail-
able at present a model or theory of rural development and poverty, it is ex-
tremely difficult for project personnel to organize complex and interrelated
observations on smallholders for purposes of fixing goals and plans of work.
Something needs to be done about this and well before a theory of poverty
finishes cooking. One way of attacking the problem is with the benefit-cost
methodology. In the hands of an experienced practitioner and knowledgeable
"applied welfare economist," techniques of benefit-cost analysis do provide
means of ordering a vast quantity of data.
A fourth area of work which is needed would include case studies of other
kinds of rural development projects which promise to provide insights for the
Pueblas, Garcia Roviras, and Cajamarcas. Irrigation, land reform, and coloni-
zation projects.have been mentioned. A careful synthesis of existing studies
may be all that is required.
A final area of research need, which was intimated, concerns whether the
qualitatively relevant manpower really exists which is capable of assisting
with solutions to rural poverty. If not, what qualities and characteristics
at what: levels of training are needed? Increasingly, this question is being
asked by national agencies. Certainly, the Foundation and the graduate agri-
cultural economics programs with which it has collaborated would want to know
more about the relevance of current M. S. training in agricultural economics
for planning, monitoring, and fieldwork'in rural development.
Before turning away completely from implications for research to program
implications, it is worth asking whether mechanisms exist for supporting a
menu of research like the one suggested here which would more fully exploit
opportunities for comparative analysis between projects. Some such mechanisms--
ALADER, the University of California at Berkeley group, and perhaps even
CEDEAL--are now available. Are these adequate, however? Is something else
needed? These questions were not discussed at any length at Sasaima.
Turning more directly ,to the discussions of the second day and possible
program implications for the Foundation, a rather sharp distinction was drawn
between the area of rural development and rural development projects.
The Foundation was drawn into the rural development projects as a result
of a long-standing interest in graduate agricultural economics programs in
Latin America. Specifically, as Colombia and, to a perhaps lesser extent, Peru
began mounting Puebla-type projects in 1970-71, the Foundation was approached
to partially finance the extension of agricultural economics competence to the
undertaking of socioeconomic diagnostics in certain project areas. The final
package of financing included some complementary support for activities of the
rural development projects per se, but it was neither the focus-of the Founda-
tion's assistance nor the primary basis for its involvement.
Sasaima produced.a consensus that this kind of action involvement at the
project level need not be extended further unless there are unique opportunities
for insights gained to be applied to similar projects within a country and the
Latin American region more broadly, manpower inputs--project leadership and
staff--are of pilot quality, training efforts of long-standing Foundation in-
terest are to be reinforced, mechanisms exist for interaction and feedback be-
tween the project.and policy analysis ahd decision making, and the Foundation's
inputs are small in relation to those of collaborating national institutions.
In contrast, discussions at Sasaima led to a conclusion that rural develop-
ment more broadly should not only be an area of future interest for the Founda-
tion's Latin American program but possibly one of its major interests. This
conclusion was based more on an understanding of thle meaning and importance of
tural development than on agreements about what the specific content of a rural
development program-might be.
For most participants at-Sasaima, rural development came to mean any socio-
economic change in rural areas accompanied by greater participation by larger
numbers of rural inhabitants in determining the direction of that change and in
benefiting from its results. It is understood by this definition that rural
development means greater access by rural inhabitants to resources, a more equal
distribution of benefits from development, and a more equitable distribution of
power in the countryside.
Less progress in the direction of specifying a rural development program
undoubtedly reflected less accord among participants about the causes of rural
poverty and stagnation. That, in turn, appears to be a consequence of the ab-
sence of a comprehensive theory of poverty. All subscribed to a view that there
is some economic and social dualism in Latin America--a dichotomy of sorts which
distinguishes zaves and have-nots. But some consider the underdevelopment of
tle h ave-nots as a passive state-that of being "left behind" by technical
change--which could be activated by a strategic combination of conventional
1/ 2/ 3/
tools in the best tradition of Lewis, Fei and Ranis,- and Schultz.- This
is essentially neoclassical, liberal wisdom; the highest current level of its
perfection is now the model of induced development of Hayami and Ruttan.-
Others view the underdevelopment of the have-nots. in a dynamic context and as
1/ Arthur Lewis, "Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labor,"
The Economics of Underdeve.opment, ed. A. N. Agarwala and S. P. Singh (London:
Oxford University Press, 1963), pp. 400-449.
2/ J. C. Ii. Fei and Gustav Ranis, Developmc'nt of the Labor Surplus Econonmy
(Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1964).
3/ T. W. Schultz, Traditional Agriculture (New Haven: Yale University Press,
4/ Yujiro Hayami and Vernon W. Ruttan, Agricultural Development: An Inter-
national Perspective (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971).
a product of s;pecifIc historical developments correlated with the lopsided
progress of the haves and their alienation, marginalization, nrd exploita-
tion of the ha e-nots.-- Contrary.to neoclassical wisdom, this perspective
does not consider the have-notb to be people who have been left behind but
rather pushed behind.
Passions and differences among proponents of these two views run deep in
Latin America. Neoclassicists associate the opposing perspective with uncon-
scionable ideologists who argue from a base of economic fiction. They are
also classified as impractical types since inevitably an appeal is made by
them for a multidisciplinary, integrated systems approach to development, for
". .. the reasons for the impoverishment of rural areas often lie
outside of these areas themselves . the ultimate cause of rural
poverty is still lack of integration into the overall socio-political
and economic system not only on a nationwide, but sometimes on a
worldwide, scale and hence the application of a package pro-
gramme. . It must take account: of the interrelationships of
socio-polit cal, economic, and technical factors in a systems
The standard reply to the neoclassical criticism is that facts should not
be confused with already existing self-evident truths. The issue is not at the
observational or descriptive level but at the level of establishing valid con-
nections between what is already observable.
Until a new, more comprehensive theory of rural poverty emerges, which is
capable of reconciling some of these existing differences, Sasaima participants
were of a mind that an interim rural development program might be defined simply
in terms of an extension of the Foundation's current agricultural program in
1/ See, for example, Herbert R. Kotter, "Some Observations on the Basic
Principles and General Strategy Underlying Integrated Rural Development," Monthly
Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Statistics, Vol. 23, No. 4 (April, 1974),
2/ Ibid., p. 2.
Latin America but with an important qualitative difference: that additional
concern be evidenced for who is benefiting from the program and how much how
many have to say about its final outcomes. This would not imply any abrupt
break with existing activities. Indeed, a rural development program cast Jn
these terms would be more revisionist than reformist. The emphasis would still
be placed on developing research and training capacities, for example. However,
there would be the twist that "capacities" would not relate exclusively to the
traditional agricultural economics discipline at the graduate level but to ca-
pacities at any level in educational and research systems which could address
relevant problems of poverty and rural development. It was agreed that this
could involve anything from support for an M. S. graduate program--which has
a serious commitment to problems of rural development and is exploring differ-
ing views of the causes of poverty--to support for training centers for field-
workers in rural development. Two provisos were inserted: that the Foundation's
inputs lead to a self-sustaining activity (e.g., it would not be interested in
simply training fieldworkers to fill existing positions in Colombia's rural
development projects) and that the undertaking be related in some way to the
talent and institutions of long-standing Foundation concern.
In addition to the examples already mentioned, it was felt that this kind
of.rural development program would permit advancing projects like the following
to the consideration of the Foundation:
Proposals which would lend to additional comparative analysis and
cross-country general nations about the rural development projects
discussed in the seminar.
Programs for inational-level policy research for rural development
(like, for example, the COCOSA program).
HRsource base proposals to further synthesize available information
and literature in an attempt to provide a more comprehensive theory
of poverty and stagnation.
Research which provided an assessment of the relevance of existing
production technologies available at the national and international
levels for small farmers.
Proposals promoting additional interaction between international and
national research centers concerned with smallholders' production
Friday, July 19
Santiago Friedmann, Puebla
Ismael Rochin, Garcia Rovira
Efrain Franco, Cajamarca
James R. Himes
Reed Hertford, Towards a synthesis of
common and contrasting lessons
Alain de Janvry, Suggested directions
for the community.of effort
Informal evening discussions with
Rodrigo Botero, Executive Director,
Foundation for Higher Education and
Development (FEDESARROLLO), and Rafael
Marino, General Manager, ICA
Saturday, July 20
Norman R. Collins
James R. Ilimes, Other program options
in rural development
William D. Carmichael, The place of rural
development within Foundation programs
Saturday July 20 continuede)
Mlichael Nelson, Suggested agenda for
discussion of rural development "position
William D. Carmichael
Discussions leading to the rural develop-
ment "position paper"
(C) Botero, Rodrigo
(A) Caballero, Carlos
(A) Cardona,' Canuto
(B) Carmichael, William D.
(B) Collins, Norman R.
(B) de Janvry, Alain
(A) Franco, Efrain
(B) Friedmann,. Santiago
(B) Guardiola, Beatriz
(B) Hertford, Reed
(B) Ilimes, James R.
(C) Marino, Rafael
(B) Nelson, Michael
(B) Rochin R. Ismael
(A) Rojas, Alvaro
(A) Rojas, Elsa
(A). Scobie, Grant
(A) Valderrama, Mario
(A) Villadiego, Tomas
(A) Zulberti, Carlos
Executive Director, FEDESARROLLO
Consultant in rural development, Ford Foundation,
Rural Development Program Advisor, ICA
Head, Office for.Latin America and the Caribbean,
Program Advisor, Agriculture, Office for Latin
America and the Caribbean, Ford Foundation
Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural
Economics, University of California, Berkeley
Project Specialist, Ford Foundation, Mexico
Administrative Assistant, Ford Foundation, Bogota
Program Advisor, Ford Foundation, Bogota
Representative, Ford Foundation, Bogota
General Manager, ICA
Program Advisor, Ford Foundation, Mexico
Program Advisor, Ford Foundation, Bogota
Director of International Department, IFI, Bogota
Secretary, Ford Foundation, Bogota
Staff, Agricultural Systems Program, CIAT
Director, Division of Agricultural Economics, ICA
Rural Development Section, Division of Agricultural
Attending July 19
Attending July 19 and 20
Attending evening session, July 19