Article Citation: Aminu Umar Alkamawa (2018). Conceptual and Theoretical Issues on Sustainable Agricultural Production. DEGEL: The Journal of the Faculty of Arts and Islamic Studies, Vol. 16. ISSN 0794-9316
CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL ISSUES ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION
By
Aminu Umar Alkammawa, PhD
Department of History
Usmanu Ɗanfodiyo University, Sokoto
aminuumar351@gmail.com
Abstract
In
his work Trends in Food Crops Production
and Dimensions of Food Insecurity in Nigeria, Haggai has clearly pointed
out that Nigeria’s agricultural production is usually associated with little
productivity which underscores the slow growing pace and declining output of
food crops due to limited use of farm inputs, agricultural machinery and
inconsistency in policy implementation. Haggai is very correct because there is
still predominance of subsistent small scale farmers using low technology for
production, processing, storage and marketing in Nigeria. Indeed, the use of
biological and mechanical inputs such as high yielding seeds, chemical
fertilizers and pesticides and agricultural machines for processing and storage
that could boost and sustain food production as well as post harvesting are
very minimal in the country. It is in line of the above that this paper
examines the conceptual and theoretical issues on sustainable agricultural
production in contemporary Nigeria. The paper reviews relevant theories on
sustainable agricultural production. It also adopts an approach that could be
more effective for sustainable productivity. Finally, the paper concludes that
some key areas have to be identify and prioritize in order to increase farmers’
productivity particularly small scale ones by policy makers.
Introduction
This
paper examines the conceptual and theoretical issues of sustainable
agricultural production. The paper reviews relevant theories such as classical
growth theory, linear-stages growth, neoclassical growth and farm production
theory. It further adopts an approach that could be more effective for
agricultural productivity in the contemporary in Nigeria. It begins with
conceptual clarification of agriculture, production and agricultural production
as a background.
The Concepts of Agriculture, Production and Agricultural Production
Agriculture
is defined in the Agricultural Act of 1947 as
“horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming and livestock
breeding and keeping, the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land,
market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands that use
ancillary to farming of land for agricultural purposes.”[1]
Yusuf defined agriculture as purposeful work through which elements in nature
are harnessed to produce plants and animals to meet the human needs. He also
added that agriculture is a way of life that involves production of animals,
fishes, crops, forest resources for the consumption of man and supplying the
agro-allied products required by all sectors of the economy.[2]
In other words, agriculture means production of food, feed, fiber, fuel and
other goods through systematic raising of plants and animals. It encompasses
farming, tending of orchards, vine yards and ranching. Ordinarily, agriculture
means the cultivation and tillage of the soil of a field in order to prepare a
suitable seedbed, eliminate weed growth and improve the physical condition of
the soil, eventually for production of crops.[3]
Production on the other hand, could be
defined as the process whereby the various factors concerned such as land,
labour and capital are brought together and transformed using available
technology into output. The output can take various forms. It can be goods or
services. In the former case, it is a tangible commodity, in the latter, it is
intangible output (service) provided to consumers.[4] Viewed from another perspective, production
could be defined as the transformation of raw materials into finished goods and
the distribution and provision of goods and services in order to satisfy human
wants.[5] In other words, production is defined as the
process of combining and coordinating inputs (resources or factors of
production) in the creation of goods and services. This is predicated on the
belief that producing tons or bundles of food and cash crops, for example,
require, in addition to suitable climatic conditions, some amount of arable
land, seed, fertilizer, as well as the services of equipment such as ploughs,
harvesters and human labour.[6]
Drawing from above, there are different
views among scholars about the concept of agriculture and production depending
on the perspective from which one looked at it.
Ojo defined agricultural production as all output from crops, livestock,
fishery and forestry.[7] In spite of the varying concepts of
agricultural production, the word here is taken to mean the production of crops
which comprises of cereal, root and tuber, grain legumes, and oil seed crops by
farmers either through traditional farming tools or modern farming implements.[8]
The cereal crops include millet, bulrush millet, sorghum, maize, rice and
wheat. Root and tuber crops comprises of cassava, yam, sweet potatoes and
cocoyam. Grain legumes crops are cowpeas, beans and pigeon. Other oil seed
crops include soya beans, groundnut, sesame and oil palms. Still other crops
referred to in the study are cotton, kenaf, sugar cane, tobacco, gourd,
tomatoes, pepper, onion and indigo. In a
synthesis, agricultural production here means production of crops as a means of
livelihood or for cash by considerable number of big, medium and small scale
farmers.
Agricultural Productivity Theories
The
role of agricultural productivity in achieving sustainable and inclusive growth
has been the major objective of most of the economies of the world. This
perhaps, explains why many shades of opinion about the interpretations on the
idea of productivity in agriculture are prevalent. Productivity in agriculture
in the words of Colman and Young is necessary not only to increase food
availability and raise nutrition levels of the population but also essential to
the development process. This is based
on the fact that channeling of agricultural surplus (production in excess of
own consumption) is a pre-requisite for rapid economic growth.[9] Providing a support for the above assertion,
is a statement by Nurkse “everyone knows that the spectacular industrial
revolution would not have been possible without the agricultural revolution
that preceded it.”[10]
Rostow argues that “revolutionary changes in agricultural productivity are
essential conditions for successful take off.”[11]
Thus this has generated a lot of attention among the various schools of thought
ranging from Classical Growth Theory to Linear-Stages Growth; to Neoclassical
Growth; to Farm Production Theory and Food and Agricultural Organization
Framework.
The Classical Growth Theory
The
Classical Growth Theory is one of the earliest schools of thought that have
contributed to the discussion of growth in output related model. The Classical
Growth Theory tries to explain the achievement of sustainable growth in output
based on some factors: size of labour force, availability of land (economically
useful resources), stock of capital, proportions in which these factors of
production are combined, and level of technology.[12]
Smiths, Malthus and Mill dominate the
Classical Theory.They unanimously argue that when population is relatively
small, return on land will be high, perhaps even increasing; but as population
grows people encounter more and more
rapidly diminishing returns. They also recognise that technological
progress takes place at a steady rate provided enough capital is forthcoming to
maximise opportunities for full employment of resources. The assumption of full
employment is predicted on the belief that land is a fixed factor of
production. Therefore an increase in labour size related to size of the land
will result into diminishing returns of factors. Therefore at full employment
level, most especially in an advanced or ‘mature’ economy, diminishing returns,
and the consequent rise in factor costs, will outrun effective technological
progress. This situation becomes reoccurring resulting into falling profit,
declining trend of investment, technological progress becomes retarded, the
wages fund ceases to grow, and so population also ceases to grow. The Classical
Theory concludes that the end result of capitalist development including
agricultural output is stagnation.[13]
The Linear-Stages Growth Theory
The
Linear-Stages Growth Theory contributes to the school of thought in the
discussion of growth in output using saving and investment approach. The Linear
Stages Theory Model explains how lack of domestic savings and investment
retarded Africa’s economic growth in output. The proponents of this theory
noted that implementation of a programme that will inject massive capital,
coupled with public sector intervention designed to accelerate the pace of
economic development, could compensate for the lack of savings and investment
in developing countries. The Theory supports the view that economic growth,
including agricultural production, could only be achieved through
industrialization. The proponents of this theory conclude that developing
countries’ retarded growth was attributed mostly to internal issues as growth
was restricted by local institutions and social attitudes.[14]
The Rostowian Stages of Growth Model
dominates the Linear-Stages Theory. It
argues that advanced countries had all passed through a series of stages. He
designated five stages: (i) traditional society, (ii) pre-condition to take
off, (iii) take off into self sustaining growth, (iv) drive to maturity, and
(v) age of high mass-consumption. In his view, the advanced countries had all
passed the stages of take-off before achieving self-sustaining growth including
productivity in agriculture. The developing countries were either in the “traditional”
or “pre-condition” stage. The theory maintains that the take off stage could
only be reached if a set of three criteria is satisfied: the country increases
its investment rate, to at least 10 percent of its national income through
domestic savings, foreign aid or foreign investment, develop a more substantial
manufacturing sector(s) with a high rate of growth; and improved political,
social and institutional framework for expansion of the new modern sector.[15]
According to them, all the above are necessary and sufficient conditions to
reach the take off stage.
The Issue of Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness
Providing
further explanation of production theory very different from the Rostow’s
stages of growth is the Neoclassical Growth Model, a further development of
Classical Growth Theory. This school of
thought is concerned primarily with the efficient and cost effective allocation
of scarce resources and with optimal growth of those resources overtime. The
proponents of this theory hold that countries develop economically including
agricultural production via the market. This was because in a market economy,
economic benefits flow to participants as individuals or countries, from
self-interested and voluntary acts. The Neoclassical theory purports that
private market, not government intervention, was critical for economic
development.[16]
The proponents of this theory argue
that economic stagnation including agriculture in developing countries was a
by-product of poorly designed economic policies and excessive state
interference in the economy. They further argue that in order to stimulate the
domestic economy including agricultural production and promote the creation of
an efficient market, developing country governments had to eliminate market
restrictions and limit government intervention. They conclude that this could
be accomplished through the privatization of state-owned enterprises, promotion
of free trade, reduction or elimination of restrictions on foreign investment
and a reduction or elimination of government regulations affecting market.
Indeed, these reform measures collectively were called “the Washington
Consensus”. They also point to a thorough-based capitalist control of the
economy.[17]
On Technical Progress and Growth of Labour Forces
The
Neo-Classical Exogenous Growth Theory is yet another dominant school of thought
in the discussion of growth in output related theory for decades. The
Solow-Swan Neo-Classical Model explains the long run growth rate of output
based on two exogenous variables namely, technical progress and the growth of
labour force. The technical progress is exogenous, independent of the economic
system and labour augmenting act as an increasing function of output ratio. The
theory concludes that growth in output including agriculture is determined by
technical progress and growth in capital and labour inputs.[18]
This model provided some factors and method for agricultural productivity
influences. Thus, technical progress is assumed to be exogenous and most
empirical studies did not demonstrate the source of this exogenous factor as it
affects labour and capital in agricultural production.[19] It
should be noted that a reaction to shortcomings inherent in Solow-Swan
Neo-Classical Growth Model led to the development of new Endogenous Growth
Theory by Romer and Lucas.
The Endogenous Growth Theory attempts
to explain the achievement of sustainable or steady growth in output based on
endogenous factors namely: research and development. Romer, the proponent of
this theory, shows how private rate of returns on knowledge-intensive
investment in research and development can be well below their social rate of
returns, because the return on private investments in new technologies are only
partially appropriable given the nature of technology that is partially
excludable. According to him, as firms develop new technologies through
research and development, results in discoveries, that many other firms can
benefit from. That is, the information generated its non rival unlike ordinary
inputs which are rival (their use by one firm prevents others from using them
simultaneously).[20]
He adds that returns to capital may be diminishing for the individual farmer;
they may be increasing for the economy as a whole due to positive impact of the
spillover effects from these investments in research and development. Romer
further concludes that these spillovers generate externalities which, in turn,
lead to suboptimal levels of investment and growth in output. They are due to
inappropriability and serves as the source of aggregate increasing returns to
capital. Capital accumulation then feeds itself, and generates a self sustained
expansion at increasing growth rate in output over time.[21]
The Farm Production Model
More
related to agricultural production is the Neoclassical Farm Production. The
Ellis Neoclassical Farm Production Model explains how a farmer, as an
individual decision maker, is concerned
with questions such as how much labour to devote to the cultivation of each
crop, whether or not to use purchased inputs, which crops to grow in which
fields and so on. The Ellis Theory recognised three kinds of relationship
between farm inputs and outputs surrounding economic decision making capacity
of the farmer that could lead to growth in output. The three kinds of
relationship are discussed below:
i.
The varying level of output
corresponding to different levels of variables inputs (example, variations in
maize output resulting from different levels of nitrogen fertilizer). This is called the factor-product or input-output
relations. It is also called production function-that is, physical relationship
between inputs and outputs to which all other aspects of the production process
are ultimately related.
ii.
The varying combination of two or more
inputs required to produce a specified output (example, different amount of
land and labour which could result in the same quantity of paddy production).
This is called the factor-factor relationship. It is also often referred to as
the method or technique of production.
iii.
The varying outputs which could be
obtained from a given set of farm resources (for example, different quantities
of cassava or beans which could be obtained from the same area of land). This
is called the product-product relationship. It is also termed enterprise
choice.[22]
The
above threefold capacity stated by Ellis for varying the way in which farm
production is organised only attains analytical relevance when placed in the
context of the goals of the farm family and the resource constraints of the
individual farm. Indeed, in practice farm families may have different goals:
long term income stability, family food security, achievement of certain
preference in consumption, fulfillment of community obligations and so on. The
farm may also face constraints of varying severity which limit the capacity to
vary the organization of production. An evident constraint is the land area of
the farm which is fixed over considerable periods of time.
Ellis concludes that for peasant
farmers in the tropics, this may be the least of their problems: labour may not
be available for seasonal peaks in activity; working capital may be unavailable
or expensive; purchased inputs may be variable in availability, quality and
price; security of tenure on the land may be low; the capability to market
alternative crops may be variable and some time non-existent.[23]
How to Produce
The
Agricultural Production Theory by Colman and Young is another important school
of thought in the discussion of growth in output. The Production Theory explicitly explains
that the main choices centre upon what to produce (which product or combination
of products) how much to produce (level of output), and how to produce
(combination of inputs to use). The production theory argues that the decision
making is the firm which is defined as ‘a distinct agent specialized in the
conversion of inputs into desired goods as outputs’.[24]
In the theory, it has been shown that
agricultural sectors of developing and developed countries, there are farms
producing cash crops for domestic or foreign markets, which fall within the
definition of a firm. In the developing countries there may also be a number of
subsistence farms in which all production is consumed and none passes through
the market. Also, the theory discusses the technical aspects of production in
terms of three relationships: (i) factor-product relationship, where there is
one variable input in a production process creating a single output, (ii)
factor-factor relationship, where there are two or more variable inputs, and
(iii) product-product relationship in which more than one product may be
produced from the available stock of inputs.[25]
Explaining Agricultural Production
Theory from the point of view of comparing peasant farmer with a capitalist
farmer is the Chayanov’s Theory of Peasant Household. The Peasant Household
Model explains that the peasant farmer was fundamentally different from the
capitalist farmer, so different that it could be said that peasant mode of
production existed for centuries. The peasant farming could be as efficient as
capitalist farming. This is because the peasant household is family, which
hires no labour and attempts to provide its own consumption needs. The family
derived income not only from agriculture, but from crafts; for much of the year
family labour is unemployed because of the seasonal nature of agricultural
production.[26]
He argues that there was a correlation between family size and farm size, and
that this changed with the life-cycle of the family. He also argues that as the
peasant family grew, so the ratio between the number of consumers and producers
changed; children as adult equivalent both as consumers and workers, and showed
how this ratio changed as children grew up, became workers and finally left
home when they married. Thus the labour supply changes over time, but is fixed
in any one year; the peasant seeks to acquire land to fit this given labour
supply, either by renting, by purchase or by redistribution.[27]
Chayanov explains that the peasant
seeks to employ fully his given uncosted labour supply, and to even out the
work-load throughout the year. The two further determinants of peasant
behaviour are family needs and increasing drudgery. Labour inputs are increased
until the family’s needs are met; beyond that increasing irksomeness of work
outweighs the advantages of further production, unless the family wishes to
increase its accustomed consumption level, or to improve the farm equipment. He
recognized that this model might not be applicable to peasants in Western and
Central Europe, where hired labour was more common than in Russia.[28]
The FAO Framework
The
Food and Agriculture Organization’s Framework explained that for any effective
agricultural development (i.e. productivity) leading to self-sufficiency the
following broad areas have to be prioritized and satisfied: (i) there must be a
political will; (ii) clearly defined objectives and targets; (iii) supply of
inputs such as seeds, fertilizer, herbicides, insecticides and equipments (iv)
supply of credit facilities;(v) market and market prices; (vi) effective
storage facilities; and (vii) sound farmer education.[29]
Indeed, satisfaction of these areas increased agricultural productivity of most
of the economies of the world to a larger extent.
The greatest political will
demonstrated by economies of the world with a clearly defined objectives and
targets in the areas of agricultural implementation policy; agricultural
research; provision of higher yielding crop varieties; better livestock practices;
more effective fertilizers and pesticide and better farm management not only
increased their agricultural productivity, but keep productivity from falling
over the years. For example, yield gains for a particular plant variety tend to
be lost overtime because pests and diseases evolve that make the variety
susceptible to attack. Thus a large share of agricultural research expenditure
should always be devoted to maintenance research.[30]
Credit Facilities, Price, Storage and Other Issues
The
supply of credit facilities to farmer increases productivity in agriculture.
This is because adoption of modern technology inevitably involves the purchase
of inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, improved seeds and investment in
irrigation equipment, implements agricultural machinery and so on. In some
cases, farmers may be involved in the construction of minor irrigation channels
or drainage ditches as a result of major irrigation, or flood protection
schemes. It is worth mentioning that even in developed countries only few
farmers are able to find adequate fund for this type of investment from their
own savings.[31]
The guarantee market price and
marketing policies provided to farmers increase agricultural production. Also,
the assurance of a market for increased output should not only exit but could
be reached at an economic cost. According to Food and Agriculture Organization,
this cannot be taken for granted in developing countries. In areas of
predominantly subsistence farming there may be no established marketing
channels to deficit areas. A long journey to market may cause direct loss
through spoilage, and this weakens still further the farmer’s bargaining
position. An extensive program of feeder road construction is often needed to
link potential producers with potential markets.[32]
Furthermore, the market may be
dominated by a single buyer, or by a small number acting in concert. Prices
fluctuate widely not only from week to week but from day to day and even from
hour to hour exhibiting a behavior that can be likened to that of stock market,
most especially during harvesting period. Dependability of markets and a
remunerative prices level are the primary incentives for farmers to undertake
the expenditures on inputs needed to produce and market more. They may not be
immediately effective in persuading subsistence farmers to enter the market
economy, since traditional modes of life and thought are hard to alter, but
with increasing urbanization and improvement in transport and communication the
number of such farmers decline rapidly.[33]
The storage facilities provided to
farmers of the world economies not only increased their productivity to a
considerable level, but keep productivity from falling over the years.
Considering the fact that staple food requirement of a country remains more or
less constant throughout the year, regardless of price of the availability of
other products. The supply of staple foods on the other hand, is subject to
numerous variations, of which the largest is in the seasonal availability of
local crops. According to Food and Agriculture Organisation changes in yield,
area planted, regional production, and the proportion of harvest actually sold
all introduce elements of uncertainty and alter the conditions of supply.
Therefore, effective storage could absorb these variations in supply, so that
produce may be channeled to consumers as they require it and at a reasonable
price.[34]
This process is inherent in normal trading practice.
Farmer’s education increases
agricultural productivity to a great extent. This is because of the fact that
education provides individuals (i.e farmers) with general skills to solve
problems. Providing support to the above assertion, is a statement by Ahearn
“education is an investment in ‘human capital’ analogous to a farmer’s
investment in physical capital.” Also, education hastens to the rate of
development of new technologies by training scientists. Education speeds the
rate of adoption of new technologies by farmers.[35] In addition, farmer could take full
advantage of technological progress if he receives regular technical, economic
guidance and training. And that is why effective agricultural extension
service, adequate trained staff, sufficient equipment and facilities for
mobility are essential ingredients for achieving agricultural productivity.[36] Indeed, farmers who have more education may
be better able to assess the merits of successfully adapt a new technology to
their particular situations. The current measure of labour input accounts for
changing educational attainment of the farm workforce over times.
It is clear from the foregoing that
there is no unanimous and acceptable theory regarding agricultural production
among economists and other scholars. Distancing themselves from the above
theories developed by different schools of thought is a framework by Food and
Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. This framework spells out prioritisation and satisfaction of certain
areas for effective agricultural development (as stated above). Hence, this
framework is adopted in this paper. This is in addition to a number of reasons:
First, agricultural production is regarded as volume of crops (food and cash)
produced by farmers of any nation as a result of political will. Second, most of the crops produced in large
quantities by farmers of any country must have clearly defined objectives and
targets. Third, farmers have to be supplied with improved farm inputs such as
seeds, fertilisers, herbicides. And finally farmers have to be provided with
modern farming implements and techniques as well as guaranteed better prices by
their countries. This has largely increased farmers’ productivity in many
developed countires.
Conclusion
Looking
at the above theories of economic growth presented, the paper concludes that
for any nation or country to achieve effective and sustainable agricultural
production some certain critical areas such as political will, provision of
inputs (improved seeds, fertilisers, agrochemicals and farm implements), credit
facilities, ready markets and better guaranteed minimum prices of crops have to be prioritize. Indeed, no
amount of designed or drafted agricultural policies could increase farmers’
productivity without identifying and prioritising certain critical areas (as
stated above) by policy makers.
References
Chanderasekeran,
et al, A Textbook of Agronomy, New
Delhi, New Age Limited, 2010
Colman,
D. and Young, T., Principles of
Agricultural Economics, Markets and Prices in Less Developed Countries, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989
Ellis,
F., Peasant Economics Farm Households and
Agrarian Development, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988
FOA, Food and Agricultural Organization of the
United Nations, 1968
Galadanci,
D. M., Introduction to Theories of
Development, Zaria, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, 2009
Grigg,
D. The Dynamics of Agricultural Change:
The Historical Experience, London, Hutchinson & Co (Publishers Ltd.),
1982
Mordi,
C.N. O, et al, (eds.), The Changing
Structure of the Nigerian Economy, Lagos, Artisele Venesse, Cards Co., 2010
Nurkse,
R., Problems of Capital Formation in
Underdeveloped Countries, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1953
NOUN-
National Open University of Nigeria, Module
I, 2009
Onwueme,
I. C. and Sinha, T. D., Field Crop
Production in Tropical Africa, England, Technical Centre for Agricultural
and Rural Development, 1991
Ojo, M.
O., Food Policy and Economic Development
in Nigeria, Central Bank of Nigeria, Publishing Service Limited, 1991
Ros,
J., Rethinking Economic Development,
Growth and Institutions, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013
Rostow,
W. W., The Stages of Economic Growth: A
Non Communist Manifesto, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1953
Smith,
A., Wealth of Nations, New York,
Bantem Dell, Bantem Classic Edition, 2003
Slowman,
J. and Wride, A. Economics, England,
Seven Edition, Prentice Hall, 2009
Articles
Aheam,
M. et al, ‘Agricultural Productivity
in the United States,’ in Agricultural Information Bulletin, U.S Department of Agriculture
Economic Research Service, 1998
Fugile,
K., et al, ‘Agricultural Research and
Development: Public and Private Investment under Alternative Markets and
Institutions,’ U.S Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 1996
Yazid,
I, ‘The Road to Consistent Policy and Sustained Agricultural Development,’ in The Barewa Lectures Series, Selected
Annual Lectures of the Barewa Old Boys Association, November, 2013
Yusuf,
S. A. ‘The Role of Agriculture in Economic Growth and Development: Nigeria
Perspective,’ Lagos, University of Lagos, 2014
[1] B. Chanderasekaran, et al, A Textbook of Agronomy, New Delhi: New Age International Limited,
2010, p. 1
[2] S. A. Yusuf,
“Role of Agriculture in Economic Growth and Development: Nigeria Perspective”,
Lagos: University of Lagos, 2014, p. 5
[3] National Open
University of Nigeria, Module
1, 2009, p. 4
[4] Ibid
[5] J. Slowman and
Allison Wride, Economics, England: Seven Edition,
Prentice Hall, 2009, p. 12
[6] D. Colman and
T. Young, Principles of Agricultural
Economics Markets and Prices in Less Developed Countries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 6
[7] M. O. Ojo, Food Policy and Economic Development in
Nigeria, Central Bank of Nigeria, Publishers Service Limited, 1991, p. 59
[8] For more
discussion on the concepts and classification of crops see I. C. Onwueme and T.
D. Shina, Field Crop Production in
Tropical Africa, England: Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural
Cooperation, 1991, pp. 157- 456
[9] D. Colman and T. Young, Principles of Agricultural Economics...,
[10] R. Nurkse, Problems of Capital Formation in
Underdeveloped Countries, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953, p.
[11] W. W. Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth: A
Non-Communist Manifesto, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953,
p.
[12] C. N. O.
Mordi, et al, (eds.), The
Changing Structure of the Nigerian Economy, Lagos: Artisele Venessa Cards
Co., 2010, pp. 35-36, see also A. Smith, The
Wealth of Nations, New York: Bantam Dell, Bantam Classic Edition, 2003, p
[13] Ibid,
[14] Ibid
[15] Ibid
[16] Ibid, p. 38,
see also D. M. Galadanci, Introduction to Theories of Development,
Zaria: Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, 2009, p. 63
[17] Ibid
[18] J. Ros, Rethinking
Economic Development, Growth and Institutions, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2013, pp. 40-42
[19] Ibid,
[20] Ibid,
p. 53
[21] Ibid
[22]F. Ellis, Peasant Economics Farm Households and
Agrarian Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp.
17-18
[23] Ibid,
[24] D. Colman and
T. Young, Principles of Agricultural
Economics..., pp. 5-7
[25] Ibid,
[26] Quoted in D.
Grigg, The Dynamics of Agricultural
Change the Historical Experience, London: Hutchinson &Co. (Publishers
Ltd.), 1982, pp. 92-94
[27]Ibid,
[28] Ibid,
[29] Food and Agricultural Organization of the
United Nations, Rome, 1968, pp. 100-108, In support of this framework see
I. Yazid, “The Road to Consistent Policy and Sustained Agricultural Development” in The
Barewa Lectures Series: Selected Annual Lectures of the Barewa Old Boys
Association, November 2013, p. 8
[30] Ibid, see also
K. Fuglie, et al. “Agricultural
Research and Development: Public and Private Investment under Alternative
Markets and Institution, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service, No. (AER-735), 1996, pp. 1-88
[31] Food and Agriculture...,
[32] Ibid, p. 109
[33] Ibid
[34] Ibid, p.116
[35] For a detailed
discussion on how education speeds the rate of adoption of new technologies by
farmers see M. Ahearn, et al, “Agricultural Productivity in the
United States”, in Agricultural
Information Bulletin, U. S Department of Agriculture Economic Research
Service, No. (AIB-740), 1998, pp. 1-25
0 Comments