A report of the Sasaima seminar on rural development

Material Information

A report of the Sasaima seminar on rural development
Series Title:
Preliminary papers. The Rockefeller Foundation. April 29-30, 1975
Conference on Social Science Research in Rural Development
Hertford, Robert
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Farming Systems Support Project, University of Florida
Publication Date:

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services ( with any additional information they can provide.

Full Text


Reed Hertford*


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-

cultural economics.

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 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

be verified.

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
*recommended technologies.

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

been small.l/

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 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

not .strong.

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 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

and Puebla.

"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
is maximized.-

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

major areas.-

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.-- 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),
pp. 1-12.
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








Reed Hertford

Opening Comments

Santiago Friedmann, Puebla

Coffee break

Ismael Rochin, Garcia Rovira

Efrain Franco, Cajamarca






James R. Himes

Reed Hertford, Towards a synthesis of
common and contrasting lessons

Coffee break

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

Coffee break

Saturday July 20 continuede)

Mlichael Nelson, Suggested agenda for
discussion of rural development "position



William D. Carmichael

Opening comments





Discussions leading to the rural develop-
ment "position paper"

Coffee break





(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,
Ford Foundation
Program Advisor, Agriculture, Office for Latin
America and the Caribbean, Ford Foundation
Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural
Economics, University of California, Berkeley
Cajamarca Project
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
Economics, ICA
IDRC/Caqueza Project

Attending July 19
Attending July 19 and 20
Attending evening session, July 19