laborers, etc. were downplayed. Some people, such as Wolf Ladejinsky,
believed that land tenure reforms in developing countries were necessary

to assure equitable and peaceful development, but his ideas were incorpor-

ated in only a few peculiar situations (post-war Japan and Taiwan) and

did not always work out (Vietnam in the 1950's).1

 In both theory and practice, these different models of extension

cannot be separated from each other and must interact. For the urban

sector to get food and cash crops there must be some general social and

cultural change and farmer participation. Conversely, for farmers to solve

their problems, they need some increases in production and some access to

urban scientific and industrial products, culture, and markets. Finally,

within the rural sector, there usually are many different groups and

interests (following class, caste, or ethnic differences), so there may be

complex pressures for change within the rural sector, which can be rein-

forced by urban linkages. It is usually not the case that a "rural develop-

ment acquisition system" will be effective or equitable without some external

controls, guidelines and support from government.

 Given the multiplicity of goals and the interactions that are
required, it is common that several different extension systems will be

set up in one country--one for food, one for jute, one in a specific

region, one to deal with a particular donor's project, etc. Chile in


 Louis Walinsky, ed., Agrarian Reform as Unfinished Business,
The Selected Papers of Wolf Ladejinsky (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1977).