Economic transformation reduces the direct opportunities for poor people in primary
production agriculture but also increases the opportunity for them elsewhere in the
economy, including agricultural and non-agricultural industries and services. If policy is to
have a much greater impact on poverty, it needs to address the needs of poor people,
including those who have to move out of agricultural production. Policy, to be genuinely
pro-poor, should at a minimum not constrain the access of poor people to the new
opportunities – and should preferably make it easier for them to participate in those
opportunities, be they rural or urban based. It must also have an integrated gender
perspective.
In the real world the transformation from a system wholly dependent on lowproductivity
agricultural production to one that is diverse and dynamic and that presents
broader opportunities to poor people is not entirely virtuous. It is a process with serious
imperfections. The main one is that poverty persists in communities with poor market
access, poor natural resource endowments and little political and social capital. Many
people remain vulnerable to shocks of various kinds, and their livelihoods are exposed to
high levels of risk. So for policy to be pro-poor, it should take account of the needs of people
left behind. Again, this does not mean that agricultural policy should become social policy.
It strongly suggests, however, that policy should be consistent with economic and social
objectives and, where possible, address them both directly.
Within agriculture, policies are needed to ensure that small producers and the
landless have a viable future. Unlike the rich countries, which can afford to subsidise their
small producers, the preponderance of small production units in most developing
countries requires that, net of the costs of assisting them, those units add to national
economic growth, not detract from it. Needed therefore are public policies and investments
that promote small producers and are tailored to the local context.
production agriculture but also increases the opportunity for them elsewhere in the
economy, including agricultural and non-agricultural industries and services. If policy is to
have a much greater impact on poverty, it needs to address the needs of poor people,
including those who have to move out of agricultural production. Policy, to be genuinely
pro-poor, should at a minimum not constrain the access of poor people to the new
opportunities – and should preferably make it easier for them to participate in those
opportunities, be they rural or urban based. It must also have an integrated gender
perspective.
In the real world the transformation from a system wholly dependent on lowproductivity
agricultural production to one that is diverse and dynamic and that presents
broader opportunities to poor people is not entirely virtuous. It is a process with serious
imperfections. The main one is that poverty persists in communities with poor market
access, poor natural resource endowments and little political and social capital. Many
people remain vulnerable to shocks of various kinds, and their livelihoods are exposed to
high levels of risk. So for policy to be pro-poor, it should take account of the needs of people
left behind. Again, this does not mean that agricultural policy should become social policy.
It strongly suggests, however, that policy should be consistent with economic and social
objectives and, where possible, address them both directly.
Within agriculture, policies are needed to ensure that small producers and the
landless have a viable future. Unlike the rich countries, which can afford to subsidise their
small producers, the preponderance of small production units in most developing
countries requires that, net of the costs of assisting them, those units add to national
economic growth, not detract from it. Needed therefore are public policies and investments
that promote small producers and are tailored to the local context.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar