IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/eeaeje/259388.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic and Political Cost of Not Integrating Indigenous Knowledge in Agrarian Policy Making in Ethiopia

Author

Listed:
  • Tenkir Bonger

Abstract

This paper examines the pitfalls of an otherwise well intentioned agrarian reform which formed the center piece of the 1974 Ethiopian Revolution. It is contended that most of the non-anticipated negative consequences emanated from the adoption of Euro-centric model not sufficiently interfaced with the specificity of rural Ethiopia. The paper focuses on the implication of there form for rural migration, the related problem of famine, redistribution of rural incomes and the impact on the welfare of the rural and the urban poor and accumulation. Finally, it brings to the fore the gist of an indigenous knowledge source on the political economy of Ethiopia which may have provided better policy reform base for the Agrarian Reform. In the search to compress the agrarian structure of Ethiopia into the social trajectory of European societies, it has been variously conceptualized as part feudal, part capitalist or wholly feudal or capitalist by writers and different political protagonists. The term feudo-bourgeoisie was the common theme which informed the political tract of analysts and activists alike on the eve and during the course of the Ethiopian Revolution of 1974. Informed by the fuedo-bourgeoisie paradigm, exempting tenants from the payment of land rent, the Reform of 1975 abolished ‘land-lordism’, to contain ‘relation of exploitation’, it prohibited the hiring in and the hiring out of labour. Similarly, it set a maximum of 10 hectares of land per peasant which could be operated without hiring labour and attendant exploitation. While most large farms were converted into State farms, those more than 10 hectares in peasant areas were apportioned to the nearby households. The great agrarian reform of Ethiopia provided an unfettered access and security of tenure especially to those who were tenants in the pre-reform period and opened up the prospect for new institutional and technological set up to unleash a dynamic process of agricultural development. However, possible gain from such a potential were constrained by setting cultivation ceiling at 10 hectare in one season rain-fed agriculture, the curtailment of open and competitive channels of marketing, undue bias in favour of State farms and the inefficient operations of the AMC. In the face of increasing population and declining per capita output of food, these contributed towards the creation of a new crisis manifested in very low producer and very high consumer prices, vastly increased imports, dependence on food aid and drastic reduction in the welfare of the urban and the rural poor. One of the root causes of the agrarian crises was the wrong conceptualization of the agrarian problem and the attendant uncritical application of statist policies in the form of State farms, marketing corporations and compulsory delivery of grain all copied without innovative adaptations from the social experiences of other societies. The policies led to mis-allocation of resources and failed to establish prices, which, while being sufficient to motivate peasants, would have been affordable by the rural and urban poor. The stifling of the movement of labour had a devastating effect on the drought prone agriculture. In the end, the institutions of the State provided comfort to the State elite at the expense of the welfare of the disadvantaged in society. By curtailing the trend towards accumulation, it stifled the medium and long-term growth prospect of the national economy. The political cost to the Derg has been obvious. GHB's conceptualization of State and peasants, defining the parameters of the role of the State in development in general and agriculture in particular and the articulation of the relation between agriculture and industry and the policy implications therein could have gone a long way in drawing more down to earth realistic agrarian policy measures at the historical moment when Ethiopia was on the threshold of radical change. Alas! as the Amharic saying goes “bej yale worq ende medab yekoteral”: "that gold in one's own hand is undervalued as if it were copper"

Suggested Citation

  • Tenkir Bonger, 2015. "Economic and Political Cost of Not Integrating Indigenous Knowledge in Agrarian Policy Making in Ethiopia," Ethiopian Journal of Economics, Ethiopian Economics Association, vol. 23(1), September.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eeaeje:259388
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.259388
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/259388/files/Tenkir%20Bonger_Economic%20and%20Political%20Cost%20of%20Not%20Integrating%20Indigenous%20Knowle.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.259388?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Palma, Gabriel, 1978. "Dependency: A formal theory of underdevelopment or a methodology for the analysis of concrete situations of underdevelopment?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 6(7-8), pages 881-924.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sebastián Fernández Franco & Juan M. Graña & Cecilia Rikap, 2024. "Dependency in the Digital Age? The Experience of Mercado Libre in Latin America," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 55(3), pages 429-464, May.
    2. Palma, J. G., 2022. "Financialisation as a (it's-not-meant-to-make-sense) gigantic global joke," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2211, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    3. Nixson, Frederick, 1984. ""Economic Development": A Suitable Case for Treatment?," Manchester Discussion Papers in Development Studies 232615, University of Manchester, School of Economics, International Development Centre.
    4. Xiaokai Yang & Dingsheng Zhang, 1999. "International Trade and Income Distribution," CID Working Papers 18, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    5. Lewis, Colin M., 2005. "States and markets in Latin America: the political economy of economic intervention," Economic History Working Papers 22483, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    6. Romano, Donato, 1996. "ENDOGENOUS RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY: A EUROPEAN (NON ORTHODOX) PERSPECTIVE; Proceedings of the Fifth Joint Conference on Agriculture, Food, and the Environment, June 17-18, 1996, Padova, I," Working Papers 14396, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    7. Susan E. Place, 1985. "Export Beef Production And Development Contradictions In Costa Rica," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 76(4), pages 288-297, September.
    8. Alam, M. Shahid, 1998. "Colonialism and Industrialization: Empirical Results," MPRA Paper 37866, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2012.
    9. Jeffrey Sachs & Xiaokai Yang & Dingsheng Zhang, 2005. "Pattern Of Trade And Economic Development In A Model Of Monopolistic Competition," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: An Inframarginal Approach To Trade Theory, chapter 10, pages 185-221, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Federico Bassi & Cédric Durand, 2018. "Crisis in the European Monetary Union: A Core-Periphery Perspective," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 35(1), pages 251-256, April.
    11. Bresser-Pereira, Luiz Carlos, 2010. "Interpretação nacionalista versus interpretação da dependência," Textos para discussão 266, FGV EESP - Escola de Economia de São Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas (Brazil).
    12. Bruno Carballa Smichowski & Cédric Durand & Steven Knauss, 2016. "Uneven development patterns in global value chains," CEPN Working Papers hal-01368948, HAL.
    13. Chichilnisky, Graciela & Cole, Sam, 1979. "A model of technology, domestic distribution and North-South relations," MPRA Paper 7999, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1982. "Basic needs and the north/south debate," MPRA Paper 8469, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1989. "North-South trade and basic needs," MPRA Paper 8357, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Matthew McCartney, 2017. "Bangladesh 2000-2017: Sustainable Growth, Technology and the Irrelevance of Productivity," Lahore Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, The Lahore School of Economics, vol. 22(Special E), pages 183-198, September.
    17. Rajah Rasiah & Johannes Dragsbaek Schmidt, 2010. "Introduction," Chapters, in: Rajah Rasiah & Johannes Dragsbaek Schmidt (ed.), The New Political Economy of Southeast Asia, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Ingrid Harvold Kvangraven, 2021. "Beyond the Stereotype: Restating the Relevance of the Dependency Research Programme," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 52(1), pages 76-112, January.
    19. Oetzel, Jennifer & Doh, Jonathan P., 2009. "MNEs and development: a review and reconceptualization," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 108-120, April.
    20. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1980. "Basic needs and global models: resources, trade and distribution," MPRA Paper 8023, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eeaeje:259388. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eeaa2ea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.