| Popis: |
Introduction A World Bank report from several years ago (World Bank 2012) stated that, despite Tanzania's reasonable growth performance in recent years, the benefits of growth had flowed insufficiently to rural households. That report painted a dismal picture of agricultural performance, the conventional interpretation of the record. In turn, the view that agriculture has been quite stagnant spurs a search for new approaches to ‘transforming’ agriculture (e.g. through the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT)). This chapter accepts that: • Since the early 1970s, export crop production has generally performed poorly. The performance of so-called ‘cash’ crops has been one source of the pessimistic view of agricultural performance. • The gap between rural and urban incomes has widened. However, this is a virtually universal characteristic of economic growth at early stages of development. From the point of view of poverty reduction the rural–urban income gap is less important than the actual growth in rural incomes. In a dynamic economy fast growth is likely to be associated with both a widening urban-rural gap and growing rural incomes. • Some rural areas have stagnated or even regressed. This is true of Kagera, which, at independence, was one of the most prosperous parts of Tanzania. • The rate of growth of rural household incomes has fallen short of what is desirable and possibly achievable. Nevertheless, there have been profound changes and significant progress in many aspects of the rural economy, with a realistic economic response to evolving market opportunities, notably through the expansion of food crop supply to urban areas, and significant progress in living conditions. If this perception is correct, it is misleading to characterize the rural economy and smallholders as inherently ‘backward’ and unresponsive to potential opportunities. The view sometimes expressed that there is a need for a fundamental change in the ‘mind-set’ of small farmers and promotion of large-scale farming may also be misleading. The failure of so many agricultural interventions and projects by government and donors cannot be ascribed to an inherent resistance of small farmers to change. It is not small farmers who have failed to identify and exploit potential development opportunities, but rather the ‘experts’ who have designed and implemented flawed rural programmes. |
