Files
Abstract
The present paper was inspired by and is a response to the Rola-Rubzen,
Hardaker and Dillon paper ‘Agricultural economists and world poverty: progress
and prospects’ (Rola-Rubzen
et al.
2001). It is agreed that the position
of agricultural economists in foreign aid and poverty programs has declined
over recent decades. Such a feeling of guilt and remorse expressed by the
above authors does indeed create considerable ‘angst’. A major reason for this
state of affairs lies in ‘the flavour of the month’ approach of the development
agencies. These include women in development, gender-based farming systems
research, household nutrition and food security, people participation, and targeting
the poorest of the poor. These fads have driven disciplinary considerations to the
wall and the more widely-defined objectives have reduced the drive for economic
efficiency. We argue there is still a place for better designed and delivered assistance
programs within the wider framework of assistance that has become fashionable.
Greater application of institutional principles in both the political processes associated
with assistance and the implementation agencies would improve the outcomes
of many projects. Particular attention would need to be given to the
interface between the development agencies and recipient governments. The
present paper picks up on the market failure aspects of agriculture’s rather poor
contribution to development, and develops a wider perspective in terms of the new
institutional economics and a continuing role for the agricultural economist.