Tag Archives: thailand

Bill Gates discovers redistributive land reform

It seems that Bill Gates has discovered the importance of redistributive land reform. He has recently reviewed Joe Studwell’s book, How Asia Works: Success and Failure in the World’s Most Dynamic Region, in a blog titled: Can the Asian Miracle Happen in Africa?

The book explains why some Asian countries developed rapidly and others did not? Gates summarises the findings. “[Studwell] offers a simple, three-part formula:

  1. Create conditions for small farmers to thrive.
  2. Use the proceeds from agricultural surpluses to build a manufacturing base that is tooled from the start to produce exports.
  3. Nurture both these sectors (small farming and export-oriented manufacturing) with financial institutions closely controlled by the government”.

OK, that sounds rather obvious. But a key to the success of some Asian countries (Taiwan, South Korea, China, Japan and others) has been redistributive land reform and directed state support (see the blog on Thailand – not one of the ‘star’ performers, but with important lessons for Africa).

Surrounded by the technologists and economists he has hired into his Foundation – many from places like Monsanto, but also the CGIAR – his agriculture programmes have been focused on big wins in production, based mostly on technology investments (the classic Green Revolution formula of seeds and fertilisers, as well as irrigation). This of course forgets one of the key lessons of the Green Revolution: that it was the wider conditions, including earlier land reforms, that were key, and that the state had to provide a solid, supportive role.

Gates continues his summary of the lessons from the book: “when you give farmers ownership of modest plots and allow them to profit from the fruits of their labor, farm yields are much higher per hectare. And rising yields help countries generate the surpluses and savings they need to power up their manufacturing engine”. This he surmises is the essence of the Asian miracle. A key lesson from the book he concludes is “that rapid agricultural development requires redistributing land more equitably among the farming population”; a lesson reinforced by Michael Lipton’s great 2009 book, Land Reform in Developing Countries that pulls together all the evidence.

In terms of lessons for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), he candidly notes: “To date, I haven’t focused as much on the land ownership piece as I have on the role of better seeds, fertilizers, and farming practices. This book made me to want to learn more about the land ownership picture in countries where our foundation funds work”.

This is of course a crucial part of the picture, and anyone studying agrarian change will point to the importance of the relationship between agrarian structure, agricultural productivity and wider economic growth. When land distribution has been highly unequal – as in East Asia and in southern Africa – redistribution of land to smallholders is a key step in economic development.

It’s good that Bill Gates has noticed this, as he has helped shape agricultural development strategy in Africa over the last decade or so through his multi-million dollar grant giving. And it has not always been in a sensible direction in my view, as politics, policy and land have often been missing (as he now admits).

I doubt he is a reader of this blog, but if anyone happens to meet him, do steer him in this direction, and encourage him to break out of the silos of technology expertise that he has created in his Foundation, and urge him to draw on wider insights from agrarian political economy. Together with the work on technology and markets (both important of course), this really could make the difference that the BGMF is always looking for in Africa.

The post was written by Ian Scoones and appeared on Zimbabweland


Filed under Uncategorized

Lessons from Thailand? A new rural economy and Zimbabwe’s political peasants

I have just been reading a fascinating book about rural Thailand called Thailand’s Political Peasants: Power and the Modern Rural Economy” by Andrew Walker from ANU. What on earth has this got to do with Zimbabwe, you ask?

Currently, a number of scholars are interested in the experience of southeast Asian countries in agricultural and rural development, and the lessons there may be for Africa, including an interesting research study looking at paired African-SE Asian comparisons. Such countries – including Thailand, but also Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia and Vietnam – have seen rapid economic growth overall, driven in part by a strong agricultural sector. The result has been plummeting poverty levels, and rising prosperity including in previously extremely poor rural areas. Their agricultural sectors have benefited from sustained state investment, including substantial input subsidies, strategic infrastructure development and reduced taxation. Land and tenure reform has been part of the story too, as more equitable land holdings provided a strong foundation for growth. There has of course been differentiation, and this has created a new class of rural dweller: someone who farms successfully, often linked into quite specialised value chains, but also someone who has also diversified into a range of off-farm activities, creating vibrant rural economies with strong forward and backward linkages. There are those who have dropped out too, but growing economies means potentials for absorption in gainful urban employment – or increasing rural employment as previously depressed rural areas boom.

In each of these countries, there has been a different pattern, phasing and geographically specific set of impacts. Thailand’s Political Peasants focuses on the fortunes of northeast Thailand. Andrew Walker describes how

“Thailand’s 21st century peasants have mobilised to defend the direct relationship they have established with the Thai state over the past 40 years. This is not the old-style politics of the rural poor, characterised by rebellion, revolution or resistance. Contemporary rural politics is driven by a middle-income peasantry with a thoroughly modern political logic. Their strategy is to engage with sources of power, not to oppose them”.

Unlike other studies which focus on the economic factors, this book highlights the politics. The strong backing of Thaksin Shinawatra, often through highly corrupt, patronage arrangements, was an important factor. The rural population benefited from such investment, and backed Shinawatra and his party (and since 2011 by Yingluck Shinawatra). In the regular tussle between the urban based elite monarchists, the orange shirts, and the rural based red shirts, the national political dynamic is laid bare. But rural constituencies matter when they are doing well, and no political party in Thailand can ignore them, no matter how much the urban, industrial boom continues.

As discussed in an earlier blog, rural differentiation unleashed by land reform in Zimbabwe presents a new, and potentially powerful, constituency, reconfiguring the national political landscape. The emergence of a strong, vocal, relatively economically successful middle farmer group is an important new political phenomenon. Here the parallel with Thailand ends, however. Agriculture and rural development has not received the backing by the state, or any political formation, in the same way, and as a result the type of upward spiral economic growth seen in Thailand has not emerged. Zimbabwe’s economy is severely depressed so non-rural alternatives are not available, and the middle income country dynamic seems a way off yet.

But perhaps, just perhaps, there are more lessons. They are all big ifs right now, but what if a new political settlement centred on this new rural constituency, and political survival and rural economic growth became intimately linked? What if the new windfalls from mineral resources were invested in rural revitalisation? What if this resulted in the sort of agriculture-led economic growth that we have seen hints of already, with spin-offs into employment, rural markets and the growth of rural towns? It will require a new political settlement combined with a new economic vision, neither of which are anywhere evident right now, but just maybe a shift in political forces in the coming years, driven by changes in class affiliations, motivations and alliances, will result in such a shift. In the 1970s, as Andrew Walker documents, no-one believed it would happen in Thailand; maybe in 20 or 30 years time Zimbabwe will look very different too.

This post was written by Ian Scoones and originally appeared on Zimbabweland


Filed under Uncategorized