-2-


successful i.e. the members have survived; (b) they are relatively static, at

least the general pace of change is below that which is considered desirable

today; and (c) attempts at change are frequently resisted both because these

institutions and processes have proven dependable and because the various

elements constitute something akin to an ecologic unity in the human realm.

 Yet the very essence of development at this micro level is an increase

in the linkages of the village and the peasant with the _ider-_orLd.- Link'?
 -'- --- "** -"--' -- ~^~-- ------ -- ------ ~
is the path of modernization and dynamism whether through a sudden export boom

or through the increased availability of non-farm produced inputs like chemical

fertilizer. As these linkages increase, the range forces beyonithe control

of the peasant farmer and the village inrerase as _ell. Increased dependence

upon the outside world without the corresponding development of countervailing

power foci which can be manipulated by the peasantry is often at the root of

rural political unrest. Moreover, not all of the increased linkages with the

outside world necessarily contribute to sustained growth.

 The current conventional wisdom about agricultural development to which

most economists would subscribe is:

 1. Agricultural development is a function of a large number of complex

interrelated factors -- natural, physical, psychological, economic, social,

cultural and political [iillikan and Hapgood, 1967].

 2. Certain factors which significantly affect development are largely

exogenous and not subject to short-run manipulation. For example, the size,

composition, distribution and rate of growth of population has a major effect

upon agricultural development at all levels.

 3. The factors which can be manipulated so as to produce a more dynamic

agriculture fall into two groups: