Nation-wide Participatory Principles.....Maybe a Stretch?
Uganda has been celebrated by some development economists for implementing a stringent program of structural adjustment, privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization designed to drive economic growth (1). As part of this effort, Uganda unveiled the Plan for the Modernization of Agriculture (PMA) as a community-based program to commercialize agriculture (9). Although the initiative's goals are admirable, it has not benefited a large majority of rural farmers. Its mission is to “increase incomes and improve the quality of life of poor subsistence farmers through the market rather than emphasizing self-sufficiency” (1). In practice, the government’s goal of achieving economic growth often overrides the program’s participatory principles, adversely impacting poor farmers who cannot grow cash crops. The PMA also allows wealthier farmers to overwhelm the voices of less politically powerful farmers on the local level (1). Thus, the experience of the PWA in Uganda raises questions about how to effectively implement large-scale, community-based development projects.
NAADS
To solve a national problem with community-based solutions, the PMA created the National Agricultural Advisory Service (NAADS) to organize local groups of farmers who articulate their needs for agricultural training or technical services. These groups purchase training or services from Private Service Providers (PSPs) with public money (10). The PMA is built on participatory, community based principles because it encourages farmer groups to identify obstacles, plan solutions by applying for grants or hiring PSPs, and evaluate the program. In fact, many rural Ugandans participate; 65 of the 120 Nnindye residents I spoke to belong to NAADS groups.
In theory, this participatory approach has several advantages over top-down initiatives. Most importantly, the providers of agricultural trainings are accountable to the farmer groups that hire them, which should improve the quality of services (10). For instance, the president of a local farmers association in Nnindye showed me how he evaluates the training program with a form.
Top-Down Priorities
However, implementation of the PMA suffers from some major flaws that minimize its impact on rural poverty. The first of these flaws is an over-emphasis of the “modernization” target of the PMA. By interpreting the requirement that PMA projects be in the “community interest” very broadly, some government officials use the PMA primarily as a vehicle to fund export-maximizing projects (11). This ignores the needs of rural farmers who lack access to or ability to participate in the market economy: “the PMA is focused not on the 40% of rural households below the poverty line, but on those better endowed with the resources of land and livestock to achieve results” in terms of increasing productivity (10). While the strength of community-based programs is in facilitating dialogue between local stakeholders and experts and in creating trainings suited to local needs, the PMA's emphasis on growing cash crops to drive economic growth undermines the program's commitment to participatory ideals. This denies funding to projects that could improve lives (11).
I saw some negative effects of the government's top-down priorities in Nnindye. The PSP operating in Nnindye spoke effusively to me about convincing villagers to “act like they are a business trying to maximize profit as opposed to just trying to grow enough to survive.” He was reinforcing the government's prioritization of growth. However, as a result some villagers I spoke with were disenchanted with the PMA. One woman said that her farmer's group had been de-funded for purchasing trainings for cassava, a local, non-export crop. For me, this was frustrating. An agricultural or livelihood strategy designed to increase food security, but not necessarily to maximize income, is nevertheless valuable to the family. In this ostensibly community-based program, the government’s priorities trampled an opportunity for this woman to better provide for her family.
Local Politics
Furthermore, the second flaw is that even when the central government does not subvert the community-based principles of the PMA, local politics allow village elites to control the trainings sought by farmers groups. Bahiigwa observes that NAADS program systematically rewards local elites, with group leadership largely comprised of wealthier, better educated, and more well-connected farmers (1). I personally witnessed tensions resulting from this. At a meeting between a local village leader and a PSP working in Nnindye, the village representative criticized the PSP for tailoring his trainings to richer villagers who paid extra money. He said that as the poorer farmers cannot afford pigs, the PSP should not teach classes that only benefit wealthy farmers group members. Ellis says that as a result of “wealth-domination”, drop-out rates from NAADS groups are high among poorer farmers throughout Uganda (2).
Scaling up a Participatory Program?
Thus, Uganda's PMA program does less than it should to reduce the vulnerability of poor, rural farmers to a gradual liberalization of the economy (2). The two problems limiting the PMA's impact among the most poor – top-down bias towards economic growth as opposed to attention to local needs and control of local politics by village elites – do not suggest an easy fix for large-scale community-based initiatives. Community-based programs have great potential on the local level when researchers and development workers invest time into programs, forming relationships that allow “experts” and locals to implement solutions together. Ideally, all villagers, regardless of wealth, contribute to problem-solving (10). Governments like Uganda’s seem accustomed to hierarchical, even paternalistic programs and are unwilling to fully trust groups of “uneducated” farmers to direct program funding (1). Additionally, local power structures are difficult to account for when implementing programs from a detached, national perspective. I would be excited to see a national program that overcomes these dilemmas. A successful national, community-based program would have to be truly committed to participatory principles, and could not allow top-down control of projects. It would trust locals as partners in developing projects while protecting the voices of politically weaker villagers. Forming farmers groups according to socioeconomic status could possibly solve some of the problems associated with local power structures. Anthropologists could lend an interesting perspective in developing such programs, a process which calls for understanding how culture, religion, and village economics shape local needs and power structures.
NAADS
To solve a national problem with community-based solutions, the PMA created the National Agricultural Advisory Service (NAADS) to organize local groups of farmers who articulate their needs for agricultural training or technical services. These groups purchase training or services from Private Service Providers (PSPs) with public money (10). The PMA is built on participatory, community based principles because it encourages farmer groups to identify obstacles, plan solutions by applying for grants or hiring PSPs, and evaluate the program. In fact, many rural Ugandans participate; 65 of the 120 Nnindye residents I spoke to belong to NAADS groups.
In theory, this participatory approach has several advantages over top-down initiatives. Most importantly, the providers of agricultural trainings are accountable to the farmer groups that hire them, which should improve the quality of services (10). For instance, the president of a local farmers association in Nnindye showed me how he evaluates the training program with a form.
Top-Down Priorities
However, implementation of the PMA suffers from some major flaws that minimize its impact on rural poverty. The first of these flaws is an over-emphasis of the “modernization” target of the PMA. By interpreting the requirement that PMA projects be in the “community interest” very broadly, some government officials use the PMA primarily as a vehicle to fund export-maximizing projects (11). This ignores the needs of rural farmers who lack access to or ability to participate in the market economy: “the PMA is focused not on the 40% of rural households below the poverty line, but on those better endowed with the resources of land and livestock to achieve results” in terms of increasing productivity (10). While the strength of community-based programs is in facilitating dialogue between local stakeholders and experts and in creating trainings suited to local needs, the PMA's emphasis on growing cash crops to drive economic growth undermines the program's commitment to participatory ideals. This denies funding to projects that could improve lives (11).
I saw some negative effects of the government's top-down priorities in Nnindye. The PSP operating in Nnindye spoke effusively to me about convincing villagers to “act like they are a business trying to maximize profit as opposed to just trying to grow enough to survive.” He was reinforcing the government's prioritization of growth. However, as a result some villagers I spoke with were disenchanted with the PMA. One woman said that her farmer's group had been de-funded for purchasing trainings for cassava, a local, non-export crop. For me, this was frustrating. An agricultural or livelihood strategy designed to increase food security, but not necessarily to maximize income, is nevertheless valuable to the family. In this ostensibly community-based program, the government’s priorities trampled an opportunity for this woman to better provide for her family.
Local Politics
Furthermore, the second flaw is that even when the central government does not subvert the community-based principles of the PMA, local politics allow village elites to control the trainings sought by farmers groups. Bahiigwa observes that NAADS program systematically rewards local elites, with group leadership largely comprised of wealthier, better educated, and more well-connected farmers (1). I personally witnessed tensions resulting from this. At a meeting between a local village leader and a PSP working in Nnindye, the village representative criticized the PSP for tailoring his trainings to richer villagers who paid extra money. He said that as the poorer farmers cannot afford pigs, the PSP should not teach classes that only benefit wealthy farmers group members. Ellis says that as a result of “wealth-domination”, drop-out rates from NAADS groups are high among poorer farmers throughout Uganda (2).
Scaling up a Participatory Program?
Thus, Uganda's PMA program does less than it should to reduce the vulnerability of poor, rural farmers to a gradual liberalization of the economy (2). The two problems limiting the PMA's impact among the most poor – top-down bias towards economic growth as opposed to attention to local needs and control of local politics by village elites – do not suggest an easy fix for large-scale community-based initiatives. Community-based programs have great potential on the local level when researchers and development workers invest time into programs, forming relationships that allow “experts” and locals to implement solutions together. Ideally, all villagers, regardless of wealth, contribute to problem-solving (10). Governments like Uganda’s seem accustomed to hierarchical, even paternalistic programs and are unwilling to fully trust groups of “uneducated” farmers to direct program funding (1). Additionally, local power structures are difficult to account for when implementing programs from a detached, national perspective. I would be excited to see a national program that overcomes these dilemmas. A successful national, community-based program would have to be truly committed to participatory principles, and could not allow top-down control of projects. It would trust locals as partners in developing projects while protecting the voices of politically weaker villagers. Forming farmers groups according to socioeconomic status could possibly solve some of the problems associated with local power structures. Anthropologists could lend an interesting perspective in developing such programs, a process which calls for understanding how culture, religion, and village economics shape local needs and power structures.