BRICS

Revitalising Agriculture: Healing the Land, Feeding our Nation

Revitalising Agriculture: Healing the Land, Feeding our Nation

By Glenn Ashton · 30 Jun 2014

South Africa is a harsh country, a place of extremes. Producing sufficient food for our people has always been a difficult challenge.The new Minister of Agriculture, who can only be an improvement on the previous incumbent, is an interesting choice.

Senzeni Zokwana is the national chairperson of the South African Communist Party, as well as having headed up the National Union of Mineworkers. He has no background in agriculture, in common with his deputy, ex-Police commissioner Bheki Cele. He appears to be a capable and popular leader. Hopefully he will be able to focus clearly on addressing the serious shortcomings within the agricultural sector which remains essentially unchanged since 1994.
We are faced with two competing pressures in agriculture. On the one hand we continue to rely on an intensive, industrial farming model to produce most of our staple crops, dominated by maize. These crops are largely grown by white farmers who still control the majority of arable land. This model has serious impacts on both the land and our water resources.

Industrial farming is intrinsically linked to the dominant economic model: maximise profit while externalising impacts and costs. Instead of driving reform, this model has served to further concentrate land ownership amongst fewer owners while simultaneously failing to address the chronic levels of food insecurity. Jobs have declined and tenure has been eroded.

On the other hand there is increasing political pressure to reform the agricultural sector as a whole, while also redistributing and reforming land holdings. Agricultural sustainability and diversity are part of this reformation process.

It is the unenviable task of the government to manage this delicate balancing act and address these often competing requirements. Many feel that Minster Zokwana has been handed a poisoned chalice.

The departure of Minister Joemat-Pettersen is welcome given her inability to grasp the nettle of agricultural reform. Rather than dealing with core issues she fiddled with patronage based small-scale farming initiatives, which have yet to realise any significant or sustainable material gains toward food production, employment or land reform. The last five years have essentially been wasted.

While Zokwana has no agricultural background, his socialist roots may incline him toward addressing the gaping inequalities in our agricultural system, both in terms of access to sufficient land and in terms of allocating sufficient resources to produce food and livelihoods from that land. There is an innate irony that his present office can directly assist his retrenched colleagues from the mining industry, most of whom hail from rural, agrarian roots. However, translating his ideology into action is another matter.

The directorate of the Department of Agriculture was substantially restructured under the watch of the previous minister. It is top-heavy with administrators involved in pastiched programmatic structures while critical human resources like extension officers, who provide real, practical assistance to farmers, are by the department’s own admission, thin on the ground.

The Department’s Directorate of National Extension Services has a director of extension reform but no director of extension support. In other words the fundamental interface between the department and farmers is presently rudderless and poorly staffed, despite the department recognising that extension services are seriously compromised.

More worryingly, the department has considered reforming extension services along public private partnership lines. This would be a major retrograde step. This is one reason why the present minister has inherited a poisoned chalice – ideology and patronage have trumped sound policy formulation.

President Zuma’s recent State of the Nation Address explicitly recognised the importance of agriculture to the nation, both from the perspective of employment creation as well as from its essential role in providing food security.

Yet, since coming into office, his new government has been unable to make any sense of the competing agendas behind agricultural reform and production. Recent proposals to allocate shareholding to farmworkers appear to be little more than a side-show, which may incidentally compromise the investment climate.

More seriously, these kinds of proposals are incapable of tackling, let alone resolving the underlying land reform and restitution tensions. The spectre of food insecurity looms over vast swathes of the nation. This is exacerbated by the lack of a cogent national food security policy, either rural, or increasingly importantly, urban.

The neo-liberal policy paradigms inherent in GEAR, IPAP, ASGISA and the rest of the well-intentioned but acronym filled WEF-friendly jargon have stymied both land and agricultural reform over the first two decades of our democratic dispensation. Our economic obsession with remaining “investor friendly” has seen agricultural policy fixated on a large-scale, industrial farming model, which includes genetically modified crops and energy and chemical intensive inputs. All those have done is maintain the status quo.

On the other hand smallholder and subsistence farmers remain largely neglected or patronised. If and when assistance has been given, it has been fixated on misplaced attempts to leapfrog farmers into the industrial model, usually without suitable support. When inevitable failures occur, everyone except policymakers are blamed.

The government has recently become more sensitised to the critical role that small scale farmers play in ensuring food security, especially given our relationship with BRICS partners, who generally nurture their small farmer sector far more holistically.

Recent Brazilian research emphasises this reality: four out of five farms there are small, largely family run enterprises. They provide nearly 40% of total agricultural production, including most food consumed in both rural and urban areas. This all comes from less than one quarter of the total cultivated area. Similar patterns exist in India and China, which also have focused on linking small scale farmers to markets, as well as on the feminisation of agricultural production.

In 2003, the African Union resolved that governments should direct 10% of budget toward agriculture. South Africa still lags far behind the rest of the continent, disbursing less than one percent of the budget toward improving agricultural production. Our policy remains controlled by males, while women are central to smallholder production.

Where smallholder farmers have been assisted, insufficient marketing assistance has been given. If marketing assistance has been provided, for instance when government institutions purchase outputs, payment is often delayed.

Minister Zokwana has the unenviable task of fitting this jigsaw together. As a primary industry agriculture is indirectly responsible for around a quarter of GDP, through food production and downstream processing. All of the parts of this puzzle – land reform, smallholder farming, food security and production – need to be holistically re-evaluated.

The minister is fortunate that extensive research has been undertaken in this field by various focus groups over the past few decades. The Programme for Land and Agrarian Reform (PLAAS) at the University of the Western Cape, the African Centre for the Cities at the University of Cape Town and Stellenbosch University’s Sustainability Institute are just a few institutions which have re-examined the agricultural paradigm.

Agricultural policies and actions over the past 20 years have failed to fundamentally reform the sector. We are in an almost identical situation regarding food security and land tenure as we were in 1994.

Radical intervention holds both high risks and opportunities. We need two things: a national summit of agricultural reform, and coming out of this, a White Paper on how we are to meet these competing requirements while improving access to land and food for our people. It is time for the minister to cast aside the poisoned chalice and start anew, rather than continue to perpetuate the mistakes of the distant and recent past.

 

This article was first published on SACSIS, the website of the South African Civil Society Information Service – http://www.sacsis.org.za

Should you wish to republish this SACSIS article, please attribute the author and cite The South African Civil Society Information Service as its source.

The article is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/za/

Time to change how economics is taught.

A Demand from Students around the World: Change Economics Education Now!

By Glenn Ashton · 19 Jun 2014

A remarkable thing is happening in the world of economics. Dissatisfied students from various institutions around the world insist that the dominant economics curriculum must change, as it inadequately reflects, or deals with, our current economic realities. They clearly realise that real change occurs from within.

These students demand changes that not only reflect our post-2008 economic crash world, but further insist that the entire theoretical economics framework and curriculum be fundamentally revised. A deep distrust of the dominant neo-classical economic model has emerged. This has spurred these young economists in training to ask how the subject can become relevant for all, not just the few.

Mainstream economic theory has been under increased scrutiny for quite some time. Alternative economic concepts have been reinforced through the work of more socially oriented economists like Nobel Prize winners Amartya Sen, Elinor Ostrum, Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman. These, amongst others, have led to a marked shift away from the strict current emphasis on neo-classical economics as taught amongst most major educational institutions, towards a more pluralistic perspective.

The New Economics Foundation was founded in the United Kingdom in 1986. It trenchantly criticised the illegitimacy of the dominant economic hegemony. It predicted the inevitable consequences of pursuing neo-classical economics, particularly highlighting its inability to adequately address social inequality and environmental consequences.

Even distinctly counter-cultural economic movements like the Degrowth movement have gained broader consideration. This has accelerated since 2008, when governments indulged in large-scale bailouts of ostensibly free market institutions with tax-payers money.

In 2010 George Soros, the philanthropist entrepreneur who spectacularly demonstrated his grasp of practical economics by gaming the international financial system, founded the Institute for New Economic Thinking. This has served to reinvigorate the debate about broadening economic perspectives, even though it too has come under criticism for its constrained perspective.

The first rumblings of unhappiness around the economics curricula emerged from the US, where a small number of students walked out of a Harvard economics class in 2011 in solidarity with the global “Occupy” protests against growing inequality. This brief dissent failed to translate into substantial changes.

However, in the UK students at the Universities of Glasgow and Manchester formed organisations to directly address concerns with their economics syllabus in 2012. The Glasgow Real World Economics Society and the University of Manchester Post Crash Economics Society were soon joined by students from other august UK institutions, like Oxbridge and the London School of Economics. These, along with dozens of other members have created a formal global alliance known as the International Student Initiative for Pluralism in Economics.

This initiative has managed to penetrate beyond its old world base, notably into Latin America and the Indian subcontinent, along with Australia, Russia and the USA. It has yet to be seen how influential the movement becomes but some progress has emerged in curriculum reform in the UK in particular, despite predictable resistance from mainstream economic thinkers against what is seen as an upstart student-led organisation.

Surprisingly the trend has yet to emerge in Africa, even as economic inequality continues to rack the continent. The only hint at change, The Young Economists for Africa, appears to have been stillborn, becoming moribund soon after its launch in 2012. This is unfortunate, especially given the continental impacts of structural adjustment, coupled to ever-accelerating neo-colonialism.

But exactly what are these students asking for?

Their primary objections revolve around the fundamental reliance on neo-classical economics. This focuses on early economic foundations which solidified in the early 20th century, based largely upon Adam Smith’s 18th century magnum opus, “The Wealth of Nations.” It emphasises the ascendance of a rational market, driven by competition. Our present economic malaise is blamed on this model, propelled by sentiments like “greed is good,” driven by a reductionist, Newtonian perspective.

Yet 17 years before the “Wealth of Nations,” Smith penned a lesser-known treatise, “The Theory of Moral Sentiments.” Instead of emphasising competition and rationality, his theory favoured co-operation rather than competition, reciprocity and fairness instead of the “rational” pursuit of value.

The initiative for economic pluralism insists we should, amongst other things, consider these critical aspects of economics. The University of Manchester Post Crash Institute points out that even mainstream economists like John Maynard Keynes remain marginalised in current university teaching, let alone Marx or Sen, Ostrum and their fellow post-Keynesians.

They insist, in what essentially serves as their manifesto, that higher economics teaching requires urgent reform in order to become relevant. More importantly a good education must produce graduates fit to operate in a far more nuanced and complex world, than one based upon the theory they are currently taught.

They insist that students must be given opportunities to analyse and compare these emerging economic theories. Such comparative analytical opportunities would equip them to discern differences between what constitutes good and bad economic theory and practice.

This leads in turn to the trend amongst higher educational institutions to encourage interdisciplinary research. Universities increasingly encourage broader experiential learning through incorporating inter-, multi- and trans-disciplinary opportunities into their curricula. Economics is by its very nature transdisciplinary, including, inter alia, aspects of sociology, mathematics, science and psychology.

Yet perhaps the very nature of economics (is it a science, art or social study, for instance?), its newness, along with the marked tensions between factions, perhaps all combine to create a degree of internal rigidity and uncertainty? Does this not encourage an internalised rather than outward looking perspective, and the consequent suspicion of multidisciplinarity?

Economics currently attracts students inspired by the questions asked by Occupy protestors, by those espousing degrowth, new economics or even the popularity of “Freakonomics.” They are increasingly savvy as to the underlying nuances of economic thought and while academic rigour is essential, diversity is equally important.

Any education must be integrated in order to equip graduates to participate in the real world. Any academic institution does itself a disservice by diluting its relevance through defensiveness, rather than exposition and interrogation of what actually makes the world of economics real.

If students are to be equipped beyond the cliché of “the dismal science” – and current, mainstream economic theory remains dismally incapable of meeting our needs – then they must receive the most complete training possible. If graduates are to effect change they must be able to deal with, and hopefully solve the dire social and environmental challenges we collectively face. They certainly cannot, and will not, remain confined within stagnant academic backwaters.

__________________________________________________________________

This article was first published on SACSIS, the website of the South African Civil Society Information Service – http://www.sacsis.org.za
Should you wish to republish this SACSIS article, please attribute the author and cite The South African Civil Society Information Service as its source.
The article is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/za/