Growth and Poverty Mailing List Archive

["Fernando Eguren" <<address removed>>]

It is striking the almost complete absence of contributions coming from
Latin America in this very interesting consultation. Let me contribute
with a few comments on farmers' organizations in Peru.

1.      Farmers' organizations are not only justified on economic terms,
but for political and social arguments as well (e.g., to have the
capacity to influence or negotiate with national/regional governments
and with other interest groups which are, in fact, organized). These
social and political capacities, in turn, will very probably have
positive economic effects on the farmer's pockets. In the real world
economic, social, political and cultural dimensions are intermingled.
Only for analytical purposes they should be separated. But once we are
discussing policies, we have to intermingle them again.

2.      The discussion on the pros and cons of farmer organizations
seems to be an entirely a case-by-case one, rather than seeking to draw
broader lessons. Should it be?  I am not sure. In the Peruvian
experience, small farmers' cooperatives have been successful when they
sprung from the needs of farmers themselves. It was a solution tailored
by the own farmers. It was a failure when cooperatives were an imposed
top-down model, as happened with the more than 600 cooperatives created
by the government, (during the implementation of land reform in
1970-1975) replacing the same number of expropriated 'haciendas' (many
of which were well managed) which, after less than a decade, dissolved
into family plots.  

3.      The success or failures of cooperatives (and of other economic
organizations) can be strongly influenced by the political options of
governments (e.g. the laws and norms issued, incentives or
disincentives, etc.).  

 

Thanks for your attention.

Fernando Eguren

Centro Peruano de Estudios Sociales

CEPES

(at the International Land Coalition/IFAD, for the next few months)