PEASANT INITIATIVE FOR SOIL CONSERVATION: CASE STUDIES OF RECENT
TECHNICAL AND SOCIAL INNOVATIONS FROM MAISSADE, HAITI
By
Thomas A. White
Working Paper No. 3, 41 pages, July 1992
For more information, contact:
Thomas A. White
Forestry for Sustainable Development Program
Department of Forest Resources
University of Minnesota
1530 N. Cleveland Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108
Tel: (612) 624-1224
Fax: (612) 625-5212
For copies of this publication, contact:
Ellen A. Maurer
Communications Director
EPAT/MUCIA-Research & Training
University of Wisconsin-Madison
1003 WARF Office Building
610 Walnut Street
Madison, WI 53705
Tel: (608) 263-4781
Fax: (608) 265-2993
email: eamaurer@facstaff.wisc.edu
* Some figures and/or tables included in the printed version of
this publication could not be included in this electronic
version. If you need copies of these figures or tables, please
contact the author.
PROJECT INFORMATION
A USAID-funded global program, the Environmental and Natural
Resources Policy and Training Project (EPAT), is implemented, in
part, by 15 universities and development organizations through
the Midwest Universities Consortium for International Activities,
Inc. (MUCIA).
EPAT/MUCIA has research, training, and communication components
that offer the latest information about:
* Energy, Industry & the Urban Environment
* Forestry & Watershed Management
* Macroeconomic Policy
* Population & the Environment
* Institutions & Policy Implementation
* Environmental Policy Training
* Environmental Policy Communications
EPAT/MUCIA publications include:
* Policy Briefs - short overviews of environmental policy
concerns
* Case Studies - outlining specific in-country policy
challenges
* Manuals - how-to-do-it environmental policy handbooks for
easy reference
* Working Papers - of environmental policy research in progress
* Monographs - detailing the state of knowledge in particular
subject matter areas.
EPAT/MUCIA environmental policy partners apply their research to
real problems, and they are eager to collaborate with researchers
throughout the world.
USAID Missions, national and international agencies, and host
country governments can collaborate with the EPAT/MUCIA project
by contacting:
Chief of Party
Tel: (703) 841-0026
Fax: (703) 841-0699
EPAT/MUCIA-Research and Training partners include University of
Arizona; Cornell University; University of Illinois; Indiana
University; University of Iowa; University of Michigan; Michigan
State University; University of Minnesota; The Ohio State
University; Purdue University; University of Wisconsin; Abt
Associates; Development Alternatives, Inc.; Development
Associates, Inc.; and World Resources Institute.
ISSN # 1072-9496
ABSTRACT
Theories of Haitian underdevelopment, and of the causes and
solutions to that underdevelopment are many, complex and often
competing. At a very basic level though, Haitian development
involves the mastery of ever changing conditions and requires
continual innovation, adaption and the ability to create and
exploit resources both internal and external to the farm, to the
community and to the nation. The capacity to innovate and adapt
is thus essential and is a foundation of sustained economic and
social development. The purpose of this paper is to consider the
phenomenon of innovation in rural Haiti by examining two case
studies of technical and social innovations for soil conservation
The studies are prefaced with a historical review of indigenous
and donor responses to soil erosion, and a synopsis of theories
concerning how innovations emerge and the factors influencing
that emergence. Special attention is paid to the role of history
and culture, political economy, and social organization in
innovation. The studies suggest that the soil conservation
innovations examined can be understood as thrifty and incremental
cultural evolution; that small groups were loci for innovation;
and that knowledge shared between scientists and peasants in a
conversational approach positively affects the generation of
innovations.
PREFACE
The author is currently conducting research on peasant
cooperation and watershed management issues in Haiti. Field
research was carried out during the summer of 1990 and also
during the month of December, 1990. The area of Maissade, where
the author had previously lived and worked as a technical
assistant to the Save the Children Watershed Management Project,
has been the site of primary focus. The advice and support of
the Forestry for Sustainable Development Program and the
Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota, Save
the Children Federation/Haiti, and the Inter-American Foundation
is greatly appreciated. Special thanks are especially due the
peasants of Maissade who have patiently taught, entertained and
supported the author since 1986.
CONTENTS
INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN HAITI
HISTORY OF SOIL EROSION AND SOIL CONSERVATION
Legacy of Erosive Agricultural Practices
Indigenous Anti-Erosion Innovations
Review of Soil Conservation Project Approaches
Conventional Approaches
Current Approaches
Current Extension Modes
Review of Techniques Promoted by Soil Conservation Projects
Summary of Experience
Factors Affecting the Adoption of Soil Conservation
Innovations
DEFINITIONS AND THEORIES OF INNOVATION
What is an Innovation and Why Does One Happen?
How Does an Innovation Happen?
Summary: A Proposed Theory of Innovation in Rural Haiti
FACTORS INFLUENCING INNOVATION IN RURAL HAITI
History and Culture
Political Economy
Rural Social Organization
THE "RAMP PAY"/AGROFORESTRY HEDGEROW TECHNICAL INNOVATION
Background
The Indigenous Technique
The Innovation
Technique Impacts
Patterns of Technique Diffusion and Adaptation
Diffusion
How Techniques Are Implemented and Reasons Given for not
Adopting
Peasant Adaptations to the "Ramp Pay" Innovation
Associations Between Group Membership, Labor Acquisition and
Technique Adoption
Chi square analysis
Log-linear models
Survey Conclusions
Discussion: Lessons From the "Ramp Pay" Case Study
THE "GROUPMAN KONSEVE TE-A" SOCIAL INNOVATION
Traditional Agricultural Labor Exchange Arrangements
SCF and Labor Exchange Groups
The "Groupman Konseve Te-a" Innovation
Summary Discussion
CONCLUSIONS: PEASANT INNOVATION AND "DEVELOPMENT" INTERVENTION
Peasant Groups and Soil Conservation Innovation
Innovation as "Thrifty" and Incremental Cultural Evolution
Small Groups as Loci for Innovation
Effectiveness of Shared Knowledge and Conversation Approaches
Role of Development Intervention
APPENDIX
NOTES
REFERENCES
INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN HAITI
The extreme environmental degradation, rural poverty and
political instability of Haiti has become the stuff of legend.
To say that it is the "poorest country in the western hemisphere"
is beyond cliche. Put simply, since the culmination of the slave
revolt in 1804, Haiti has gone from "emergence to emergency", its
population growth outpacing its ability to innovate and manage in
the face of changing conditions (Lowenthal 1989). In seven short
generations the basic site of domestic production for a majority
of the rural population has shifted from flat, fertile plains to
steep, stony slopes. Peasants have not yet mastered this new
environment, and resultant soil erosion figures highly in Haiti's
declining rate of per capita food production estimated at 2% per
year (USAID 1985).
Theories of Haitian underdevelopment, and of the causes and
solutions to that underdevelopment are many, complex and often
competing. At a very basic level though, Haitian "development"
-- however defined -- involves the mastery of ever changing
conditions as per the desire and design of the Haitian people.
This mastery of changing conditions would require continual
innovation, adaptation and the ability to create and exploit
resources both internal and external to the farm, to the
community and to the nation. The capacity to innovate and adapt
is thus essential, and is the foundation of what has become the
new goal of the concerned international community, sustainable
development.
It is widely recognized that the Haitian State has historically
played an overwhelmingly predatory role in rural Haiti -- through
taxes and police control -- and has essentially left the peasant
alone to face the vagaries of changing environmental and market
conditions (Trouillot 1990). Where extension services have
reached the peasant they have been supplied by disparate and
uncoordinated "projects" of various scope and quality,
implemented by missionaries, private voluntary organizations, and
occasionally by the State. A review of soil conservation
approaches and techniques indicates that conventional development
projects which have misunderstood or ignored the personal and
social factors influencing Haitian technology have failed; and
that projects which use participatory approaches can result in
the sustained adoption of soil conservation techniques. Further,
though it is widely recognized that projects which involve
peasant groups in innovation and diffusion can have positive
results, the dynamics of these relationships have not been
thoroughly investigated.
The purpose of this investigation is to briefly consider the
phenomenon of innovation in rural Haiti, with special attention
paid to the role of social organization in that innovation. Two
case studies of technical and social innovations for soil
conservation will be presented, and several conclusions will be
drawn. A brief review of the history of soil erosion; of
indigenous and donor responses is presented to provide a
background for the following discussion.
This paper will examine the issues of innovation and soil
conservation from the perspectives of these institutions which
are most directly engaged in the resolution of soil erosion
problems in Haiti: the peasant, the community and the project.
Issues related to the role of the State, and the macro-economic
and political causes of soil erosion will not be explored in
depth.
HISTORY OF SOIL EROSION AND SOIL CONSERVATION
Legacy of Erosive Agricultural Practices
Substantial soil erosion has been a problem in Haiti since the
colonial period when mountain forests were cleared for coffee
production, and plantation crops (cotton, indigo, tobacco) were
clean-cultivated (scraping weeds between plants, and pre-till
field burning). Some reports state that due to excessive erosion
coffee plantations were difficult to reestablish after the first
generation, and indigo crops were only productive for three years
(Paskett "et al." 1990). After the revolution, the slaves "cum"
peasants combined remembered horticultural practices of Africa
with learned agriculture and plantation cultivation methods of
Haiti. The result was a mixed system where Haitian farmers
clean-cultivate agricultural crops, burn crop stubble prior to
tilling, periodically leave annually cropped parcels fallow for
an extended period, and establish tree gardens around family
compounds. With increasing populations, and resulting pressure
on the limited arable lands, the fallow practice has increasingly
been precluded, tree gardens have diminished in size, and
peasants have steadily moved to less desirable mountain lands for
annual crop culture. Agriculture and clean-cultivation, two
erosive and resistant remnants of the colonial period, have been
carried from the plains to the mountain slopes by the new
generations.
Indigenous Anti-Erosion Innovations
The widespread annual cropping of hill slopes is a fairly recent
phenomena, it was not until the mid twentieth century that
substantial numbers of farmers were faced with new, sloping
cultivation conditions. Some peasants have adjusted the
techniques developed on, and appropriate to the plains in ways
which mainly conserve soil moisture, require limited amounts of
labor and non-financial input, and can be implemented with the
common tools; hoes and machetes. These techniques are also
predominantly found in ravines and in association with higher
valued crops ("e.g." rice, bananas, taro). With limited
exception, they are not commonly found in extensively managed
gardens planted to cereal crops.
Indigenous innovations associated with annual cropping which
conserve soil and water include: "zare" (soil and stubble scraped
up into a mound to retain water for rice cultivation); "sakle en
woulo" (weeds hoed into small mounds along the contour at one
pace intervals); "ramp pay" (stubble gathered along the contour
and supported with stakes); "dig ravin" (assorted plant and soil
material placed in ravines to retain soil and water for banana,
taro, rice or yam cultivation); "bit" (soil heaped into mounds
for sweet potato cultivation). These techniques, where practiced
in the traditional manner, must be reconstructed on an annual
basis, and are frequently inexactly constructed and relatively
inefficient in controlling soil erosion.
The "tram", a peasant innovation, is the combination of the "bit"
and a contour seed bed promoted by a Haitian agronomist. Since
the 1950s when this innovation took place it has become standard
practice in the vegetable producing areas of Furcy. In analyzing
the evolution of the "tram" the anthropologist G. Murray
concluded that peasants were not interested in saving their soil
"per se", but in saving the fertilizer sown for vegetable
production. In essence, "erosion control has occurred as the
secondary result of an innovation whose primary function, from
the peasants viewpoint, is the immediate enhancement of their
cash profits" (Murray 1979:58). This finding is consistent with
the author's finding that the indigenous "dig, woulo, ramp pay,"
and "zare" are constructed to retain moisture for enhanced crop
productivity, not to necessarily to retain soil.
Review of Soil Conservation Project Approaches
Conventional Approaches
Since the initial development aid of the early 1950s, Haiti has
witnessed numerous reforestation, soil conservation and watershed
management projects, the majority of which, by most accounts,
have produced disappointing results (AID 1990, BREDA 1988, Murray
1979). Most major development projects have utilized an
"equipement du territoire" approach which assumes that enhanced
rural welfare will automatically follow investments in engineered
environmental rehabilitation. This approach has been
characterized by large-scale prescriptions of contiguous land and
large ravine treatments, mechanical rather than biological
structures, and monetary and commodity incentives to attract
peasant adoption (Lilin and Koohafkan 1987). Highly degraded and
steep lands have often been the target for intervention. Contour
rock walls, canals, and bench terraces, the internationally
standard techniques, have been the primary techniques promoted by
international donors and professional technicians.
The use of this approach and these techniques has been criticized
for its orientation to long-term and downstream environmental
benefits rather than short-term and on-site socio-economic
benefits; its disregard for indigenous knowledge and techniques,
socio-cultural institutions and land tenure complexities; for
creating dependencies; for not responding to primary peasant
motivations, needs or requests; and for failing to result in the
sustained adoption and maintenance of the promoted technologies
(Murray 1979 and Lilin 1986). In short, because of the
pervasiveness of such projects in rural Haiti, many peasants have
become accustomed to being approached by alien people intent on
transferring alien technologies for frequently alien reasons. To
a large degree, these technologies have not been adopted or
maintained by peasants and have not spread beyond the immediate
project boundaries.
Current Approaches
An "agricultural parcel" approach to soil conservation developed
in the early 1980s in response to the weaknesses of the
conventional soil conservation approach stated above and the
recognition that:
1) farmer remuneration was not necessary for technique adoption
and even acted against technique maintenance and diffusion;
2) a number of indigenous techniques existed which could be
improved, and;
3) peasants have a natural incentive to conserve soil in order to
increase agricultural production.
This new approach takes a farmer rather than an engineering
perspective of soil erosion and as primarily an "upstream"
agricultural problem rather than a "downstream" sedimentation
problem. Projects adopting this approach target individual
parcels and do not disburse external incentives to encourage
adoption. Increased agricultural production via retained
moisture and soil is the primary incentive for farmer adoption of
soil conservation techniques. Due to the success of projects
utilizing the "agricultural parcel" approach in achieving
sustained adoption: consensus among technicians is currently
emerging in which the "agricultural parcel" approach should be
used when targeting private lands, and the conventional
"equipement du territoire" approach be subsequently employed to
treat the "public" ravines. This basic strategy has been
recommended by STABV. Remuneration would be used only in cases
of collective effort for collective good (such as the treatment
of public courses or public roads).
Current Extension Modes
In addition to overall project approaches, implementors choose
different extension modes and methods to promote soil
conservation techniques. Put generally, current extension modes
can be separated into three broadly defined categories (adapted
from Murray 1990):
1) A comandante mode in which adoption occurs because of either
project authority or project disbursed wages (Murray 1990). This
mode is usually associated with joint GOH/international donor
projects which use the "equipement du territoire" approach. This
"peasant persuasion" mode can result in rapid construction of
treatments but can also jeopardize long-term development
objectives. When used for installation of hillside treatments it
has not generally resulted in maintained structures, sustained
soil conservation or crop production increases. Ravine
treatments constructed with this mode have however received a
higher degree of volunteer maintenance.
2) A technique by task mode in which an agricultural extension
type network organized by specific extension tasks is used solely
to promote project selected techniques. The Pan American
Development Foundation (PADF) agroforestry hedgerow campaign,
which since 1988 has paid extension agents for each meter of
structures established on private land is an example of this
approach. This approach is based on project-peasant
conversation, is generally administratively efficient and has
resulted in a large number of treated parcels.
3) A integrated and participatory promotion mode in which soil
conservation techniques are developed and extended along with
other agricultural system interventions. Techniques are
frequently based in indigenous practices and are refined and
promoted with the participation of local farmers. Projects
employing this mode usually focus on select communities and use
peasant groups as vehicles for technique diffusion. The MCC's
Bois de Lawrence project and SCF's Maissade project are examples
of this approach. Project experience has shown that investment
in peasant organization can permit the voluntary treatment of
common soil conservation problems such as "public" ravines.
As soil erosion problems are immense and diverse in Haiti, each
of these modes used appropriately can and has made a contribution
to soil conservation and enhanced rural welfare. The differences
between the modes are fundamental and choice between them would
be based on implementor objectives, level and duration of
funding. Projects employing the comandante mode calculate that
the cost of paying upstream farmers is worth the protection of
downstream investments. Those employing the promotion by task
mode aim to enhance the welfare of individual farmers, and those
employing the integrated and participatory promotion mode cast
their net further and aim to increase local capacity to respond
resiliently to changing conditions. Soil conservation is
incident to this process.
Review of Techniques Promoted by Soil Conservation Projects
Summary of Experience
Conventional Techniques. Various soil conservation techniques
have been promoted in Haiti with varying degrees of success.
Early projects primarily prescribed mechanical, internationally
standard techniques ("e.g." bench terraces, contour rock walls,
contour canals, and rock checkdams). Generally efficient in
terms of soil retention, these techniques are labor intensive,
alien to the Haitian agricultural system, and have not been
adopted unless wages were paid as incentive. In the case of
bench terraces and contour canals, infertile subsoil is brought
to the surface during construction resulting in crop production
declines. Bench terraces have not been maintained except in the
high-valued crop area south of Port-au-Prince. Contour rock
walls have had a similar history, many kilometers have been
constructed on infertile lands in food for work projects, and
maintenance has been extremely limited. Checkdams have been
maintained to a greater degree as evidenced in the existence of
checkdams built by FAO/MARNDR projects in Aux Cayes and Limbe
during the 1970s.
Vegetative Techniques. Vegetative hill and ravine treatments
began to be promoted by a majority of projects during the 1980s.
These include "Leucaena" and elephant grass hedges, "ramp pay"
(contour trash barriers covered with soil), and wattling
("kleonaj") in ravines. These techniques are sometimes used in
combination. These require low labor inputs, and can result in
short-term, net financial gain to the adopter. They have been
promoted throughout Haiti without wage or food incentives and
have been widely adopted. These techniques are generally less
efficient than mechanical structures in terms of soil retention,
but can be altered or combined to meet specific landowner site
conditions and management objectives to a greater degree.
Contour vegetative hedges of lemon grass and vetiver were also
promoted during the 1970s. Like the mechanical techniques of the
period, these techniques were also widely rejected. This
rejection could be due to several factors: an adverse reaction
to the manner in which they were promoted; or because they did
not yield an adequate short-term economic return.
Factors Affecting the Adoption of Soil Conservation Innovations
Given the soil conservation innovation is deemed worthy and
desirable by the farmer, several primary contextual conditions
appear to impact farmer decision on whether or not to adopt a new
soil conservation technique on a certain parcel of land (adapted
from Pierre-Jean 1991):
1) level of land security felt by the farmer [note 1];
2) productive and economic value of the soil (impacted by
distance to markets);
3) capacity of the farmer to invest time and labor for learning
the technique and then for installing it, and;
4) natural willingness of farmer to take risks and adopt
innovations.
DEFINITIONS AND THEORIES OF INNOVATION
What is an Innovation and Why Does One Happen?
A review of the literature on innovation and diffusion reveals
several distinct schools of thought as to just what an innovation
is and why one might happen. The "school" which has been most
influential in North-American and North-American influenced
development projects is led by Everett Rogers. He defines
innovation as "an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as
new by an individual or other unit of adoption" (Rogers 1983:11).
This school views innovation and diffusion as distinct processes,
takes the need for the innovation as given, treats technology as
a free-standing object independent and devoid of cultural
meaning, and views problems of diffusion as ones of communication
and persuasion. To E. Rogers, innovations are singular
inventions that are adopted via a process of protagonistic
"marketing". At issue is the potential adopters behavior ("i.e."
attitudes and personality) -- rather than their ability to adopt,
and the ability of the agent promoting the innovation to persuade
the potential adopter.
In contrast to the Rogers school, H. Barnett (1953), B. Agarwal
and others have argued that innovation and diffusion are not
separate processes -- that innovation is essentially the first
step in the diffusion process -- and that potential adopters
decisions concerning adoption is based on rationality rather than
persuasion (Agarwal 1983). In this school, innovations are ideas
or technologies which are continually adapted as they are
adopted, and represent sequential socio-cultural change.
H. Barnett, an early proponent of this school, stated that "When
an innovation takes place, there is an intimate linkage or fusion
of two or more elements that not have been previously joined in
just this fashion, so that the result is a qualitatively distinct
whole" (Barnett 1953:181). J. Schumpeter's simple definition,
that innovations are "the carrying out of new combinations"
(1971:47) also fits this contrasting school of thought.
Economists have focused on the economic factors "inducing"
innovation, and have taken a market rather than personal
perspective. Ruttan and Hayami (1984), utilize a functionalist,
neo-classical argument that innovation results from the
endogenous scarcity of some component of production. Thus, using
this argument for example, the tractor was adopted in the United
States in response to increasing labor costs. This is
essentially the "scarcity is the mother of all invention" school.
The neo-classical school has been criticized by another group of
economists that emphasize the importance of exogenous, structural
factors (history, international markets, politics and
institutions) in "inducing" innovation ("e.g." A. de Janvry
1985).
The discipline of anthropology is also divided on the subject.
Again, in general terms, the division is largely between those
who consider humans to be pragmatists with innovations a function
of their rational objectives and characterized by the materials
at hand, and those who consider humans meaning- and symbol-making
beings with innovations a function of their subjectively defined
beliefs. From the latter perspective, innovation is culturally
defined and stimulated, and thus innovation is essentially an
overt act of cultural creation. Regardless of which of the two
arguments one supports, anthropology informs us that for reasons
related to either material or belief systems, each and every
culture is necessarily and fundamentally different. Anthropology
thus offers at least one clear contribution to the debate on
innovation: an innovation which can be considered "rational" in
one socio-cultural environment would not necessarily be
considered "rational" in another.
Two anthropologists, H. Barnett and S. Gudeman, offer arguments
that bridge this gap between the "induced" argument of the
economists and the "culturalist" arguments of some
anthropologists. Barnett maintained that the incentives to
innovate can be described as: self-wants (including credit wants
and subliminal wants); dependent wants (including convergent, and
compensatory wants); or a voluntary desire for change (Barnett
1953). At the personal level, the "induced" innovation model of
Ruttan and Hayami would fit within Barnett's model.
Accepting the Barnett's and Schumpeter's definition of innovation
-- as that of making new combinations of familiar things --
S. Gudeman proposes that people create new things for use, and
simultaneously create culture (Gudeman 1991). A discarded food
bowl used for a chimney cap is thus both an innovation with
practical use value and a cultural creation. This proposal is
both a refinement and extension of the Barnett model.
Beyond economic and cultural rationales, there are of course
"personal" motivations for innovation. By using the term "wants"
rather than "needs", Barnett clearly asserts the uniquely
personal nature of innovation incentives. Schumpeter notes that
these motivations vary from "spiritual ambition...mere
snobbery...will to conquer...to prove oneself...to succeed for
success itself...[and] finally there is the joy of creating, of
getting things done or of simply exercising one's energy and
ingenuity."(Schumpeter 1971:69). Gudeman (1991) reminds us that
the innovator can be motivated more by pride and excitement than
by potential economic gain.
How Does an Innovation Happen?
We have previously discussed various theories concerning what an
innovation is and why it might occur. How does it actually take
place? Conventional American literature and the popular American
belief hold that innovations are largely the product of
supraindividual inventors who have great intellects, insight, and
an eagerness to take risks. These independent innovators are
also the entrepreneurs whose gall, brilliance and drive for
profit make the market economy function.
Barnett (1953), Kash (1989) and others have proposed that the
"American, independent innovator" is largely the stuff of myth
-- or was only partially true in an earlier period -- and though
often responsible for formulating new ideas, they are not, unto
themselves, responsible for innovations. H. Barnett also
emphasized that innovations initially and primarily take place on
a mental plane where divergent ideas converge.
Barnett proposed that the breadth and depth of ideas increase the
frequency of innovations and that social, cultural or natural
barriers to the exchange of ideas necessarily limit their mixing
and remodeling. Similarly, Barnett found that the collaboration
of effort positively influenced innovation. Group interaction
increases the possibility that a new idea will develop, not only
because of the simultaneous and cooperative exploration, but
because the interactions are mutually stimulating (Barnett
1953:42-43).
According to Kash, innovations are actually the product of
organizations which integrate different knowledge and skills held
by different individuals. This is not to dismiss the importance
of the original idea, or of brilliant individuals. It is to
state that brilliant ideas are initially just recombinations of
old ideas, and that they are actually reformulated, adapted and
processed by "normal" men who in the process create the
innovation. Kash's theory that organizations sequentially create
innovations is similar to that held by the innovation school
represented by Agarwal: that innovation, adaptation and
diffusion is a single process involving multiple individuals.
The term "brainstorming" illustrates Barnett's and Kash's
proposition. From this perspective, groups or societies which
are successful innovators are those in which individuals are
organized in ways which stimulate the generation, interchange,
testing and adoption of ideas. In essence, "the collective
capacity to innovate becomes something more than the simple sum
of its parts." (Reich in Kash 1989:53). Thus in modern western
society at least, the secret to innovative capacity is propitious
social organization.
Summary: A Proposed Theory of Innovation in Rural Haiti
The author will adopt the Barnett and Schumpeter definition of
innovation and amend it with contributions of Agarwal, Gudeman
and Kash: that innovations are essentially new combinations of
familiar ideas (or "things") or a new use of an old idea; that
this innovation is first "induced" by motivations which can be
described as self- and dependent wants, and then "formed" by
culture, market prices, resource endowments, and social
organization. More specifically, innovation is the first step in
the diffusion process and group dynamics positively affects the
creation of the innovation itself, and then its diffusion. The
second step in the process, the "formation" of the innovation is
directly dependent upon State "permission" of the individual
freedom and social collaboration which facilitate the interchange
of ideas. This theory implies that at least three major factors
would influence innovation and diffusion: 1) the history and
culture of a people; 2) the political and economic context
within which they operate and; 3) the organizational framework
within which they think, discuss and work [note 2]. These
factors influencing innovation will be reviewed in relation to
Haiti before analyzing the case studies.
FACTORS INFLUENCING INNOVATION IN RURAL HAITI
History and Culture
Haiti is itself a historical and cultural innovation.
"Discovered" by Christopher Columbus in 1492 and colonized by
France, approximately 800,000 African slaves were imported by the
late 1800s (Mintz 1974a). The forced and long-term proximity of
African slave and French master, and their necessary
interdependence fostered a new, hybrid culture. This hybrid,
"creole" culture consisted of a new language (Haitian Creole),
religion (voodun-Catholicism), foods, behaviors and people (Afro-
Caribbean). Upon the successful overthrow of the French
colonizers in 1804, the ex-slaves established independent
homesteads on what was previously plantation lands. Mintz
(1974a) has termed this new agricultural class a "reconstituted"
peasantry as they combined practices, crops and traditions from
both their African ancestry and European heritage.
Expressions of cultural innovation are also found in rural craft
and art. Traditional and modern Haitian music combines African
drum beats, French, English and Spanish lyrics, Latin and North
American rhythms. Inventive village blacksmiths have become iron
sculptors when they forged artwork from scraps of iron and steel
drums. Haitian iron sculpture has become an internationally
recognized art form. One only needs to stroll through the "bric
a brac" section of Port-au-Prince's Marche Salomon to be startled
and then convinced of lower-class Haitian capacity to combine
previously discarded items, find new uses for old articles,
invent new items and then artfully market these constructs.
Also relevant to this discussion are Haitian notions of
responsibility and causality. One of the most evident cultural
attributes to outsiders is Haitian "superstition" and related
explanations of cause and effect. For example, a person is
rarely if ever sick because of a physical affliction. Illnesses
are usually the result of a spiritual spell cast by a malevolent
individual, for the purpose of causing harm. Another brief but
compelling indication of Haitian notions of responsibility is
found in the following popular proverb: "se pa neg ki voye woch
ki te twe kulev-la, se neg ki te we'l." Literally translated; it
is not the person who threw the rock who killed the snake, it is
the person who first saw the snake who killed it. This proverb
at least indicates that at least some Haitians give credit to
individuals who see a problem and initiate solutions rather than
to those who conclusively solve problems. This proverb also
interestingly insinuates that at least two people are required to
solve a problem, one who identifies it and another who deals with
it.
Popular proverbs reinforce the notions that interdependence is a
fact of life which has both positive and negative aspects, and
that cooperation is at least necessary and perhaps even a social
ideal. A common proverb in rural Haiti is: "zanmi pre se kouto
de bo; zanmi loin se lajan sere." Literally translated this
means, "Nearby friends are double edged knives; distant friends
are money saved." Another frequently heard proverb in rural
Haiti is: "yon sel dwet pa ka manje kalalou". Literally
translated this means, "Okra can not be eaten with only one
finger."
The term "voodoo" is renown among academic and popular circles
and often conjures up stereotypical notions of dolls riddled with
pins, violent sorcery, and glassy-eyed zombies. In fact, the
term "voodoo" refers to a dance not a religion in Haiti, and such
lurid notions -- though empirically based -- are relatively rare
in occurrence. The many investigators of Haitian religion (e.g.
Metraux 1972; Herskovits 1971; Mintz 1974b; Murray 1980 and;
Smucker 1983) have essentially agreed that it is a folk-cult
involving belief in a pantheon of spirits and is syncretistic
-- integrating various forms of West African animism, ancestor
worship, magic and Catholicism. Rituals, which combine animal
sacrifice, individual possession, drumming, dancing and singing,
are performed to interact with the spirits who are both
ambivalent and capricious (Smucker 1983). Authors also generally
agree that an individuals relationship with spirits is managed
through ritual and that these relationships "are fundamentally
reciprocal and transactional" (Smucker 1983:140). Service
-- spiritual appeasement through the offering of material goods
-- is rewarded with protection, health, and sometimes wealth.
And in general, the greater the service, the greater the reward.
The effects of such a belief system on Haitian social behavior
and individual psyche are of course many, diverse and the subject
of intellectual debate for many years. A common point of view is
that the potential for inter-personal malevolence and the fear of
retribution keep believers independent, careful and fearful; and
provide strong incentive for conflict avoidance and social
cohesion (Smucker 1990).
Political Economy
Another key remnant of French colonialism was the emergence of
the mulatto "affranchi" class. Born to French masters and their
slave mistresses, the economic and political power of this class
was enhanced after the revolution. In many ways, the revolution
did not so much change the distribution of wealth as it
transferred ownership of power from the French colonialists to
the indigenous elite.
Since the revolution, agriculture has remained the nation's
essential productive activity, and returns from agricultural
exports remained the primary source of federal wealth (Trouillot
1990). For example coffee, which is still grown by a substantial
proportion of peasants, makes up roughly 50% of current export
value, and government income (Farmer 1988). To this day Haitian
peasants maintain three modes of production; cash cropping for
local markets, cash cropping for export markets and subsistence
(Mintz 1974a). The marketing and price levels of the export cash
crops (chiefly coffee) was not controlled by peasant producers,
but by the oligopolistic merchant bourgeoisie, their
intermediaries ("speculateurs"), and the international market
(Dupuy 1989). The above discussion illustrates that: 1) peasant
production is embedded in the domestic and international market
economies; 2) these markets are controlled or manipulated by the
merchant elite or government forces; and 3) these forces have a
substantial impact on peasant decision concerning what, when and
how they produce.
The correlation between class and innovation also merits
analysis. As stated in the previous section, the poor are often
"bricoleurs" induced to innovate because of economic shortages.
The upper class on the other hand, has historically had a hold on
the economy and is not economically induced to innovate because
they respond to guaranteed "rents" not uncertain "profits" (de
Young 1958). This theory is supported with evidence that the
upper class in Haiti has historically invested in traditional,
low-risk ventures such as land, homes, and monopolistic marketing
ventures, and has avoided risky new ventures.
Historically, Haitian peasants have never had institutional forms
of political mediation (Smucker 1986). The traditional means of
peasant "mediation" of political interests was the peasant
revolt, the first of which took place in 1840. This large scale
revolt was against low agricultural prices, merchant tyranny and
insufficient land availability (Moral 1978). Agrarian revolts
continued periodically to topple national governments until the
American occupation beginning in 1919. By destroying rebel bands
and constructing a strong, centralized military force, the Marine
occupational forces effectively eliminated the traditional means
of expressing peasant political discontent.
Rural Social Organization
In rural Haiti the basic unit of living, production and social
life is the house (Metraux 1952). The "lakou" (compound) is the
basic residential unit within which both nuclear and extended
families are included. Male and female roles are complementary.
Males are largely responsible for on-farm agricultural
production. Females market family farm products but are usually
primarily engaged in other commercial activities. Household
resources and returns are normally pooled, and farm returns
rather than commercial efforts are usually the greatest source of
income (Murray 1980).
"In terms of social organization, rural Haitians are first and
foremost members of the bilateral kin groups through which they
receive their first access to land. But in addition, most
Haitian farmers at one time or another in their lives
traditionally become voluntary members of groups of six or seven
individuals whose basic purpose in association is the exchange of
labor." (Murray 1990:31).
Besides organizing for agricultural purposes, peasants organize
themselves in religious, school, neighborhood, or livelihood
related groups.
Neither the western concept of "community," nor the African
concept of "clan," apply adequately to rural Haiti where the
landscape is very much one of independent and scattered "lakou"
(Smucker 1986). Rural towns have largely evolved from market
places, and a sense of local solidarity is not strong. The
peasantry, composed of families with widely varying access to
wealth and productive assets, is not a homogeneous class.
Jealousies and disputes are common. Levels of social solidarity,
morality, confidence and trust would normally be strongest at the
level of kin, and then subsequently (and approximately) at the
levels of fictive kin ("i.e." god-parents), labor exchange group,
local religious group, and then perhaps locality. It is within
the context of these trusted social groups that peasants discuss,
debate, and formulate responses to the changing conditions of
life.
Huizer (1970) has noted the negative impact of political
repression and terror on peasant cooperation, trust and peasant
organization. The Duvalier dictatorship of almost 30 years
certainly meet Huizer's criteria for political repression and
terror. The regular assassination of opponents, predation on
community organizations which did not explicitly espouse
Duvalierist tenets, and the generalized and strong infusion of
fear and distrust, all but eliminated leadership and
organizational skills from the country. This repression and its
attendant impoverishment also effectively attacked the very
social fabric which is conducive to innovation and technology
development.
This brief synopsis of Haitian history and culture, political
economy and social organization suggests that: 1) peasants have a
historical and cultural foundation for great innovative capacity;
2) domestic and labor groupings are strong loci for innovation
and diffusion; and 3) peasants must operate -- and innovate
-- within powerful political and economic constraints.
THE "RAMP PAY"/AGROFORESTRY HEDGEROW TECHNICAL INNOVATION
Background
In early 1986 Save the Children Federation initiated a pilot
integrated watershed management project in Maissade, Haiti.
Project planners combined two new, apparently successful
extension approaches: 1) the mobilization of "groupman" (small
farmer groups); and 2) the promotion of agroforestry as an
economically beneficial production alternative. Maissade was
chosen for its high rates of soil erosion and lack of other
service-providing organizations. The predominant cropping system
in the area is a corn and sorghum intercrop. Field beans are
cultivated extensively at higher elevations and yams, plantains,
taro, and rice are planted in the more moisture rich sites. Hoes
are used for cultivation and few agricultural inputs are used.
During the first year the project focussed on peasant
organization activities, assisting farmer groups in the
identification of local problems, solutions and strategies to
achieve the desired results. During this period project staff
also studied local farming techniques and systems, social and
marketing networks, and the status of local perceptions and
priorities concerning natural resources. It was during this
process that the staff identified the indigenous, soil
conserving, trash barrier ("ramp pay") as a technique with
promising characteristics. It should be noted that at the time,
contour canals, rock walls and checkdams were considered to be
the soil conservation techniques of choice by technical
assistants.
The Indigenous Technique
"Ramp pay" literally translated means "straw barrier". In its
most typical form (Figure 1), it is a rough assemblage of crop
residue ("e.g." corn and sorghum stalks) which is placed
horizontally along steep slopes (most commonly along ravine
sidewalls). The "ramp" might average 30 centimeters in both
width and height. Wooden stakes are driven into the ground on
the downhill side to support the structure. Because the
structure is composed of decaying vegetative material, it must be
rebuilt annually. Project investigation indicates that with
materials at hand a farmer can construct one linear meter of the
structure in approximately 4 minutes (SCF 1988). The function of
the "ramp" is to retain soil moisture and is constructed in
association with the more highly valued and moisture demanding
crops. Though few farmers actually practiced the technique in
1986, the term "ramp pay" was well known and understood by local
farmers.
Some said that the technique was more widely practiced by older
generations, though no explanation as to why was given. A
similar indigenous technique termed "zare" is commonly
constructed in low-sloping ravines as rice paddy dikes. The
"zare" is constructed with weeds and stubble scraped up during
the land preparation phase.
The Innovation
Among other topics, the project encouraged peasant groups to
identify major agricultural problems and identify probable
causes. Project extension agents (who were locally hired and
trained) would facilitate debate by asking the groups "why"
identified problems were indeed problems. This non-directive
approach stimulated open project-peasant conversation, and
"groupman" ownership of the debate, the process and the results.
Soil erosion and its negative affect on agricultural yields were
widely recognized as a major problem in the Maissade area and
indeed a fundamental contributor to increasing impoverishment.
The deleterious impacts of the traditional burning of crop
residue was also identified. Other problems recognized were the
seasonally inadequate supply of fodder for livestock. Animal
husbandry is an essential component of domestic production and
forage scarcity during the annual four month dry season is a
major constraint.
Through the group network, extension agents proposed (sometimes
implicitly and sometimes explicitly) extensive use of the "ramp
pay" as a solution to the related problems of erosion and
declining yields. The argument was essentially: that "ramp pay"
could be used on agricultural fields to increase agricultural
yields; that crop stubble could be used for the construction of
"ramp pay" rather than burned; and that the effectiveness of the
"ramp" would be improved if an A-frame level was used to
determine the contour and appropriate placement of the "ramp."
The "ramp pay" were constructed as traditionally, during the
field preparation period at the end of the dry season. The
A-frame level could be easily constructed with readily available
materials. Another technique, termed "met bra" (literally, "arm
rule") was used to determine appropriate spacing between "ramp
pay" along the slope.
Field tests and training sessions concerning these techniques
were conducted in 1987 with early adopters, just prior to the
onset of the agricultural season. Extension agents promoted
farmer experimentation of the techniques, maintained close
dialogue with the early adopters concerning results, and
encouraged their sharing of the new knowledge generated. The
technique was not rigidly defined by the project, agents insisted
only on the placement of the structure along the contour.
Figure 1. The "Ramp Pay"/Hedgerow Technique and the Formation of
a Progressive Terrace
Design by Frantz Ewald, 1989.
The hedgerow, another adaptation to the "ramp pay," was proposed
to farmers in order to increase local fodder production, and to
transform the "ramp pay" into a perennial rather than temporary
structure. Hedgerow establishment required planting live
vegetation (leguminous tree or grass species) in front of the
"ramp" (downhill side, see Figure 1.). The purpose of the
hedgerow is three-fold: 1) to support the structure and thus
protect the accumulated sediment and moisture; 2) to reduce labor
investments by avoiding the annual reconstruction of the "ramp"
after decay and; 3) to provide livestock forage material during
the dry season. Leguminous species' nitrogen fixing capability
have the potential of improving soil fertility.
Technique Impacts
Peasants quickly recognize the effect of the "ramp pay" after the
fall of the first seasonal rains. Sediment accumulates on top of
the "ramp" and continues to build during the rainy season. The
retention of sediment 50 centimeters in height over the course of
a season are not uncommon. To farmers, this sediment is an
unmitigated indication of increased crop yields. Project studies
of corn and sorghum yields on treated plots were 51 and 28%
greater respectively than on untreated plots in 1988 and 22 and
32% greater in 1989 (SCF 1990). These agricultural yield
increases are due to increased moisture availability and soil
friability on the enriched microsite on the uphill side of the
structure. With the installation of this technique a bench
terrace is progressively formed. There is no evidence to date
that the addition of the hedgerow to the "ramp pay" directly
increases yields. Where hedgerows are installed, and are mature
enough to harvest, the lopped material is commonly used for
livestock fodder rather than on-site green manure. Another
significant result of technique adoption is the subsequent
cessation of the traditional practice of post-harvest field
burning.
Patterns of Technique Diffusion and Adaptation
Diffusion
Adoption of the "ramp pay" was limited in the first year of
technical activity (20280 linear meters installed by 153
participants, see Table 1.). The project measured the structures
that were installed in agricultural plots with the A-frame level.
The technique diffused rapidly in the second year when 91,866
linear meters were adopted. Project technicians estimated that
approximately 50,000 linear meters were installed without the
A-frame level in addition to amount measured (SCF 1988). It
should be noted that no monetary or commodity incentives were
used by the project to promote adoption. The technique was
adopted by individual farmers -- most of them "groupman" members
-- and installed on their own privately held parcels. The
project ceased monitoring "ramp pay" adoption rates after the
second year as the technique was spreading rapidly and monitoring
cost was exorbitant.
The hedgerow (agroforestry adaptation of the "ramp pay") was
adopted at a slower rate -- 4160 linear meters the first year and
6568 the second. Adoption increased dramatically in the third
year and reached 43,167 linear meters in the fourth. The "ramp
pay" and hedgerow were usually adopted separately. Most
participating farmers adopted the "ramp pay" first, analyzed
impacts and then decided whether to install the hedgerow
adaptation later -- perhaps that very season, but usually the
year following. The "ramp pay"/hedgerow combination was thus
usually adopted sequentially -- each farmer acquiring the
different options at the specific pace of their understanding and
appreciation of the techniques.
How Techniques Are Implemented and Reasons Given for Not Adopting
A formal survey of "groupman" members conducted in September 1990
found that of the members who had adopted "ramp pay" or hedgerow
techniques, an average of 32% implement them as individuals, 49%
implement them with the assistance of their "asosye" group, and
19% implement them with one other farmer (Annex, Table 1). 39%
of "groupman" members sampled who do not adopt the promoted
techniques cited a lack of time as the reason why they do not
adopt; 21% stated that they do not own land; 17% stated that
they do not have land appropriate for the techniques promoted;
and 10% or less responded that they either do not know how to
implement techniques, hire all agricultural labor, or gave some
other reason not listed on the questionnaire.
Peasant Adaptations to the "Ramp Pay" Innovation
Peasant adopters have contributed notable adaptations to both the
"ramp pay" and the "ramp pay"/hedgerow. From the initial stages
of technique development, peasants voiced concern over the
potential for increased rat infestation from the creation of what
were seen as ideal nesting sites in the "ramp pay." Though this
never proved to be a problem, the project introduced an
adaptation of covering the crop stubble with dirt from a shallow
trench dug on the uphill side of the structure. In addition to
filling air pockets of the structure with soil and thus reducing
rat habitat, this adaptation increased the usefulness of the
structure by increasing surface water infiltration.
Table 1. Adoption Rates of "Ramp Pay" and Hedgerow Techniques
[note a]
Year "Ramp Pay"
Quantity Installed Adopting Landowners
(linear meters)
1986 0 0
1987 20,280 153
1988 91,866 220
1989 (no record) (no record)
1990 (no record) (no record)
a. adapted from SCF 1988 and SCF 1990
Year Hedgerow
Quantity Installed Adopting Landowners
(linear meters)
1986 0 0
1987 4,160 81
1988 6,568 143
1989 25,000 (approximate) (no record)
1990 43,167 479
a. adapted from SCF 1988 and SCF 1990
Innovative farmers have also made significant changes to the
hedgerow. Some farmers have used local species for the live
barrier instead of the leguminous tree and grass species. Others
have varied the density of seeds planted upon soil
characteristics and management objective. One farmer recently
planted perennial cotton plants in a hedgerow configuration.
Though initially questioned by project technicians as cotton is a
known soil nutrient depleter, this adaptation has gained project
support as cotton achieves the principal hedgerow function of
sediment support, and provides substantial economic benefits.
Other farmers have experimented with different hedgerow lopping
heights, and different management schemes. For example, a number
of farmers leave several leguminous stems in the hedgerow to
produce seed and in this manner they eliminate dependence upon
the project for hedgerow seed. Others select the stems with the
best form, leave them for polewood and harvest the rest of the
hedgerow for forage.
Associations Between Group Membership, Labor Acquisition and
Technique Adoption
A formal survey was conducted to learn of the relationships
between "groupman" membership, type of labor acquisition and
technique adoption. The survey was prepared in questionnaire
form and conducted by seven animators in their entire work zone
(averaging 2000 hectares). The majority of the survey was
completed by the animators themselves with information from their
work-notes; additional information was obtained via informal
encounters with randomly chosen peasants. The results of this
survey are presented in Table 2 of the Annex. The data was
analyzed using both Chi square and log-linear analysis. A
description of the results and the meaning of those results
follow.
Chi Square Analysis
The hypothesis that all categories of farmers: technique adopting
"groupman" members, non- adopting "groupman" members, non-
"groupman" adopters, and non-"groupman" non-adopters acquire
labor for major agricultural tasks in the same manner was
rejected at the .05 significance level.
Similarly, the hypothesis that adopting and non-adopting
"groupman" members acquire labor in the same manner was also
rejected at the .05 level. These tests indicate that there is
some correlation between the manner in which farmers acquire
labor and technique adoption. "Groupman" members who have
adopted techniques exhibit a greater tendency to participate in
group labor exchanges ("asosye") than "groupman" members who are
non-adopters (approximately 43% of adopters cooperate in "asosye"
while 34% of non-adopters cooperate in "asosye"). Non-adopting
"groupman" members have a greater tendency to exchange labor with
one other individual than do adopting members (38% and 18%
respectively). Both adopting and non-adopting members exhibit a
low tendency to hire day labor for the execution of major
agricultural tasks (approximately 9%).
The hypothesis that adopting non-"groupman," and non-adopting
non-"groupman" acquire labor in the same manner was accepted at
the .05 significance level. When categories are lumped
together, adopters exhibit a slightly greater tendency to
cooperate on tasks (either in groups or in pairs) than non-
adopters, and also have a lower tendency to hire labor. Non-
"groupman" farmers have a greater tendency to work their land
individually than do "groupman" farmers (36% and 24%
respectively). Non-"groupman" farmers also have a lower tendency
to cooperate in "asosye" groups (16% compared to 39%). The
percentage of farmers who exchange labor with one other
individual is approximately the same (28%) in both "groupman" and
non-"groupman" categories.
Log-linear Models
Log-linear analysis was used to determine the degree of
interaction between the "groupman" membership, labor type and
technique adoption variables. As indicated in Annex 1 Table 2,
nine models were tested for goodness of fit. The model which
assumed that technique adoption was independent of "groupman"
membership and labor type was the strongest model. The model
which assumed adoption and "groupman" independence conditional
upon labor type was the second strongest model. The third
strongest model was one which assumed adoption independence with
labor conditional upon "groupman" membership. No other model
resulted in significant interaction. Odds ratios were calculated
from the u-terms of the best fitting model and the following
conclusions can be drawn:
1) non-"groupman" farmers are 3.5 times more likely than
"groupman" farmers to work as individuals rather than in groups;
2) non-"groupman" farmers are 1.4 times more likely than
"groupman" farmers to work as individuals rather than in pairs;
3) non-"groupman" farmers are 2.7 times more likely than
"groupman" farmers to work as individuals rather than hire labor;
4) "groupman" farmers are 2.4 times more likely than non-
"groupman" farmers to work in groups rather than in pairs;
5) "groupman" farmers are 3.2 times more likely than non-
"groupman" farmers to work in groups rather than hire labor;
6) "groupman" farmers are 2.1 times more likely than non-
"groupman" farmers to work in pairs rather than in hire labor.
Survey Conclusions
As if it needs to be said, this survey does indicate once again
that human behavior is difficult to model and predict. The
survey does point out that "groupman" members and non-"groupman"
members do acquire labor differently, and that this interaction
is independent of technique adoption. Generally speaking,
"groupman" farmers exchange labor more, and work individually and
hire labor less than non-"groupman" farmers. As indicated in
previous sections, there is an expressed (and apparently
increasing) tendency for "groupman" to perform as labor exchange
groups. In addition, it is informative to recall that the
survey took place two years after the "ramp pay" innovation was
generated, and after the technique has been widely adopted. If
conducted the year prior, a difference might have been found in
the social linkages between the early and the late adopters.
Discussion: Lessons From the "Ramp Pay" Case Study
Many factors appear to have positively influenced the adoption
and diffusion of the "ramp pay" and the "ramp pay"/hedgerow
techniques. In particular, the "ramp pay" and "ramp
pay"/hedgerow combinations:
1) combine components familiar to peasants ("e.g. ramp pay,"
hedgerows) and are compatible with other agricultural and social
activities;
2) are simple and require low and non-financial installment costs
(The "ramp pay" can also be easily destroyed if farmers decide
against continued use.);
3) provide short-term economic returns (usually in the same
season as installment);
4) are adaptable to farmer specific site conditions, management
objectives and preferences. This factor facilitates a sense of
farmer "ownership" of the technique and;
5) can be adopted sequentially, at the farmer specific pace of
knowledge and decision accretion.
The participatory technology development method utilized also
permitted peasant "authorship" of the structures on their own
land. This "authorship" quality probably positively influenced
adoption and further innovation. In one sense, these innovations
were a product of "cultural" rather than "financial" capital.
Finally, it should be noted that the "ramp pay" on the contour,
and "ramp pay"/hedgerow innovations were originally designed and
promoted by the project technical staff. These are clearly not
examples of independent and spontaneous, local peasant
innovation. These innovations are cases of knowledge and
practice shared in conversation between peasants and technicians.
In sum, it appears that social affiliations (via labor exchange
or "groupman" membership) are facilitating, but not necessary
conditions for technique adoption. Though this apparently
indicates that if a technique is sufficiently beneficial to the
individual then social affiliations are not necessary for the
technique to diffuse, it should be remembered that the survey
took place two years after the innovation was generated. The
rapid adoption rate of the "ramp pay" indicates that though
social affiliations may have facilitated generation of the
innovation and initial adoption, they are probably no longer
critical for "ramp pay" diffusion.
THE "GROUPMAN KONSEVE TE-A" [note 3] SOCIAL INNOVATION
Traditional Agricultural Labor Exchange Arrangements
As stated in the previous section on Haitian social organization,
labor exchange plays a critical role in agricultural production.
Because rainfall often determines the timing of agricultural
tasks, labor is urgently required by all farmers at unpredictable
moments. Labor is thus sporadically in great demand, of limited
supply, and thus scarce. Access to labor at critical moments
during the agricultural season can make the difference between
great yields and no yields, abundance or scarcity. For this
reason peasants "strategize", operating in ways to assure that
when the rain suddenly falls and assistance is needed on an
agricultural task, they get help.
Many forms of labor groups exist and they range from the large,
festive, religiously affiliated "sosyete" to pairs of friends who
regularly cooperate on any task requiring more than two hands.
An intermediate arrangement is the "asosye" or "esquad" labor
exchange group. A great deal of literature has been written on
this topic, and the importance of the traditional "kombit"
festive work party in Haitian society has reached almost mythic
proportions in Haitian popular history. Labor exchange is
strongly rooted both in the cultural belief system of
transactional relationships with the spiritual world, and the
exchange oriented market system.
In the Maissade area, informants claim that the "kombit", which
was in the past a dominant means of accomplishing field
preparation tasks, is rarely used now except by the more
prosperous peasants. Reasons cited are the increasingly high
cost of the requisite festivities and the uncertain and low
quality of labor. Informants also state that "asosye" has also
been popular, but that this arrangement declined in prevalence
during the oppressive Duvalier regime. The causes of this trend
are reportedly several: local police action caused social
division, a paucity of trust, and a general reservation towards
group action for fear of malevolent accusations of "communism" or
co-option for "voluntary" participation government labor
activities.
Motivations cited for participating in an exchange labor group
include both those of utility and social approbation. Peasants
state that working in groups is "encouraging", that the work
seems to be completed quickly and that no costs are incurred
(because it is not festive and no food is provided).
SCF and Labor Exchange Groups
As stated in the previous case study, SCF has promoted peasant
organization -- chiefly for community development objectives
-- in Maissade since early 1986. In 1989, after substantial
adoption by individuals of soil conservation techniques on
private agricultural parcels, the project began promoting peasant
cooperation for the treatment of erosive ravines which crossed
private property boundaries. In short, the project encouraged
the formation of new social groups of farmers who owned or worked
land within small watersheds which were especially degraded.
This approach was in accord with the recommendations of Murray
(1978 and 1990) and others who have called for the establishment
of hillside labor gangs for the construction of soil conservation
structures. Cernea (1989) also has called for the testing of
such an approach.
Field research conducted by the author in 1990 on the topic of
peasant cooperation for micro-watershed management in Maissade
generated a number of lessons for the project, some of them
unexpected. In short, cooperative efforts for the treatment of
trans-boundary ravines operated to a degree surprising to both
peasant and project. A total of 649 checkdams were constructed
by approximately 900 person days of volunteer labor on over 100
different parcels of private land between April 1989 and August
1990 (White 1992). A fact surprising to project staff was that
42% of regular participants did not own land in the watersheds
treated. Further investigation concerning the incentives for
participation in the cooperative activity indicated that the
overwhelming majority of these "external" participants were
members of agriculture labor exchange groups ("asosye" or
"esquad") with watershed landowners who participated.
To summarize, the project learned that: 1) it was largely
unsuccessful in creating new social groups based on land
ownership in the same watershed; 2) this did not prevent complete
watershed treatment and; 3) that pre-existing social arrangements
("e.g." labor exchange groups) were the principal actors in the
work accomplished and the vehicle by which the techniques were
being diffused (White 1992).
Research resulted in another interesting observation concerning
the relationships between project peasant organization promotion
and the prevalence and nature of labor exchange groups. In 1990,
11% of the farmer groups participating in project activities
claimed that they had operated as labor exchange groups prior to
project activity. The same survey indicated that 46% of farmer
groups currently operate as labor exchange groups. This increase
does not necessarily imply that the project caused farmers to
adopt cooperative behaviors -- in all likelihood as labor
exchange is a common traditional activity -- the members of the
46% of the groups now exchanging labor had exchanged labor in the
past. The project then seems to have influenced groups of people
who had not exchanged labor together to collectively adopt the
labor exchange practice.
In addition, in an adjacent area named "Bwa Wouj" where the
project has recently initiated limited peasant organization and
technical assistance programs, peasants who have traditionally
engaged in festive work parties ("kombit") are now operating in
labor exchange groups. Informants indicated that though there
were other reasons for shifting from the "kombit" to the "asosye"
arrangement, it was project influence which inadvertently
triggered this change. Neither of the above mentioned project
impacts on labor exchange patterns were known to project staff at
the time of the survey in 1990. Thus in essence, while the
project was promoting groups for community development purposes,
peasants were also utilizing this new tool ("groupman") to
facilitate labor acquisition.
As stated above, the period of project implementation (January
1986 to the present) corresponded directly with the overthrow of
the repressive Duvalier dictatorship of 30 years and the
subsequent blossoming of cooperative activity of diverse forms
throughout the country. This occurrence undoubtedly positively
affected the reformulation and formation of labor exchange groups
to some degree, and is an example of the effect of the State
politics on local-level innovation.
The "Groupman Konseve Te-a" Innovation
In the Larik area of Maissade several groups of males began
exchanging labor ostensibly for the construction of soil
conservation structures in March 1990. These self-initiated and
self-named "groupman konseve te-a" operated during the dry season
and installed techniques on their own land but also on lands of
non-members who owned land upstream of their own. In this manner
they assured the protection and effectiveness of their investment
in their own lands.
Both of the groups interviewed by the author were composed
chiefly, young, single males who had previously participated in
traditional labor exchange groups ("asosye"), though not always
in the same groups. There was some overlap, about 50% of members
also worked together in "asosye" groups during the agricultural
season. The primary criteria for participation was apparently an
individual's interest in cooperatively installing soil
conservation structures on their lands. A majority of members
were also members of the SCF sponsored "groupman." One group
interviewed had held eight work days during two months, installed
15 "ramp pay"/hedgerows, 14 ravine checkdams, and worked on seven
different parcels of private land. Both groups plan to continue
working each dry season and are actively encouraging others to
form their own soil conservation groups.
Summary Discussion
This social innovation, which combines traditional labor exchange
arrangements with a newfound motivation to implement soil
conservation techniques is purely a peasant innovation. Project
personnel were surprised to learn of the innovation and have
since encouraged other farmer groups to consider the same.
Though peasant initiated, it is realistic to assume that the
project played some role in influencing peasants to consider this
particular use of a traditional organization.
It should be noted that after the field survey was completed, the
author discovered that an identical social innovation had
occurred the year previous in a nearby region. In that case,
farmers -- who were members of "Moveman Paysan Papay" (MPP)
project sponsored "groupman" -- began forming new and independent
groups to do soil conservation tasks. They too exchanged labor
on each others lands. In this instance the groups termed
themselves "brigad." The MPP project was also ignorant of this
innovation initially, but has since promoted this type of
organization. There are now reportedly 500 such groups operating
in the region (Gerner 1990).
CONCLUSIONS: PEASANT INNOVATION AND "DEVELOPMENT" INTERVENTION
Peasant Groups and Soil Conservation Innovation
Innovation as "Thrifty" [note 4] and Incremental Cultural
Evolution
In the case studies presented, Haitian peasants either adopted
project promoted innovations, or independently generated
innovations which combined indigenous techniques or social
arrangements. The innovations were recombinations of familiar
practices and were only incrementally different from the original
practices. The "ramp pay" technique promoted differed from the
indigenous technique in that it was placed in agricultural fields
and was on the contour. The "groupman konseve te-a" differed
from the indigenous "asosye" arrangement in that it met during
the dry season to construct soil conservation structures. These
incremental differences also apparently permitted incremental
adoption and incremental adaptation by peasants with different
productive objectives, constraints or tendencies.
A fundamental characteristic of both innovations was that they
were relatively simple, required low non-financial investment
costs which did not threaten domestic thrift, and showed quick
results. Upon examination of the soil conservation techniques
which have diffused spontaneously ("tram, ramp pay, kleonaj"),
one determines that erosion control has only been adopted in
Haiti when it results in thrift, or increased net economic gain
-- not necessarily because it saves soil. Thus with relatively
low investment, peasants could determine whether the innovation
was worth their time or not. This low investment and quick
return characteristic of the innovations suggest that economic
efficiency is a minimal, necessary condition for adoption.
Small Groups as Loci for Innovation
In both cases, the innovations took place in association with and
were evidently facilitated by the dynamics of small groups of
which most adopters were members. Apparently these groups of
kin, friends and labor exchange partners form a mutually
stimulating network of trust, solidarity and confidence which
encouraged and promoted innovation. The groups are apparently
not only the forum for "brainstorming" and organizational
learning, but they permit the sharing of uncertainty over the
outcome of adopting the innovation, be it externally or
internally generated. A study of innovation adoption in Nigeria
also found that farmer group membership was positively correlated
with adoption. This study even suggested encouraging group
membership as a means of improving innovation adoption (Njoku
nd). If these hypotheses are true, then it was no coincidence
that the "groupman konseve te-a" and "brigad" innovations
occurred independently and that in the appropriate social
conditions, peasants will spontaneously innovate and adapt.
Even the SCF and MPP projects which explicitly support peasant
organization did not recognize the social and reciprocal nature
of labor acquisition, an apparently fundamental peasant
preoccupation. Haitian peasants are members of social networks,
and their decisions are influenced by the trusted groups of which
they are members. Again, in Haiti it is not the person who threw
the stone who killed the snake, it is the person who first saw
the snake who killed it; and no one finger can eat okra. Though
often the cause of substantial consternation among peasants
(nearby friends are double edged knives), peasant interdependency
is recognized and accepted as a rule. Conversation among trusted
associates regarding individual decision is standard.
In addition to the function of generating the innovation,
participation in small groups, either labor exchange or
"groupman" apparently facilitate (but is not necessary) for
technique adoption. Continuing from the previous section, if the
innovation is sufficiently and obviously economically beneficial
then individuals are likely to adopt it regardless of social
affiliation. As many agricultural development innovations are
not obviously economically beneficial, then the role of group
dynamics -- to test, adapt, and share the risk of an innovation
-- becomes apparent.
Conventional soil conservation approaches embodied the western
cultural bias to the individual. In USAID's first major report
on the human resources of Haiti written in 1962, the author
concluded that "the peasant is receptive to innovations and,
except under extreme duress, is incapable of group action to
defend his interests" (Schaedel 1962:iii). This conclusion
implicitly encourages approaches which understand the Haitian
farmer as an individual, and more explicitly, as an individual
decision maker. Judging from history, past soil conservation
experience and from the case studies presented in this report,
the conclusion that Haitians are "incapable of group action to
defend his interests" is apparently not only untrue, but refutes
the positive role group action can have on innovation adoption
and cultural change.
Effectiveness of Shared Knowledge and Conversation Approaches
One of the key elements illustrated by the case studies was the
benefit of shared knowledge between peasant and scientist. Both
sets of knowledge and perspective have limitations, and reliance
upon one set of knowledge or the other would not suffice in
solving rural Haiti's massive and complex set of problems.
Another key element suggested by the case studies was the
usefulness of technology development and diffusion approaches
based on project-peasant conversation rather than manipulative
persuasion. Both of these elements represent substantial
departures from conventional soil conservation approaches which
largely assumed Western notions of "innovation diffusion as
marketing", and Western defined "rationality". Western or
western trained technicians largely promoted western techniques
while ignoring indigenous knowledge, techniques and social
affiliations.
In the author's opinion, Haiti is not short of the resource
scarcity which is often considered "the mother of invention", its
very history is one of cultural innovation; and peasants also do
not seem short of new ideas, of a willingness to try new things,
or of the social organizations which facilitate innovation. What
does seem lacking is a political and economic environment
conducive to peasant innovation and the widespread use of project
approaches which promote innovation.
Role of Development Intervention
Key questions for project development agents are: "How should we
intervene; how do we recognize promising local knowledge and
practice; how do we discern what of our knowledge is appropriate
to rural Haiti; and how do we converse with the peasantry?"
Development agents should begin with the recognition that land
use patterns (and soil conservation innovation in particular) are
products of a synergistic mix of economic incentive, cultural
heritage and social organization. Agents should also begin with
the premises that: for soil conservation to be adopted and
sustained it must be an extension and incremental transformation
of existing cultural and technical behaviors; this transformation
can be stimulated but not forced by external agents; the exact
character of the technique must be authored by local inhabitants
in order to mesh with existing cultural and technical standards;
and, this extension can be achieved by dialogue with existing
landholders.
A small but growing group of development practitioners provide
some food for thought. Noting the wealth of indigenous
agricultural and forestry knowledge, and the legacy of farmer
innovation and adaptive strategies: their orientation is not to
transfer or market technologies from research stations and
western technicians but to "empower farmers to learn, adapt and
do better; analysis is not by outsiders... but by farmers and
farmers assisted by outsiders;... what is transferred by
outsiders to farmers is not precepts but principles, not messages
but methods, not a package of practices to be adopted but a
basket of choices from which to select." (Chambers 1989:182).
Thus, in response to the question of how to intervene, this group
of practitioners would respond; "Ask and assist the farmers".
To conclude, the following specific recommendations should be
considered by individuals concerned with soil conservation and
sustained rural development in Haiti: 1) use group-based
extension strategies; 2) use extension strategies in which
peasant and technician knowledge is "shared" in conversation
(rather than persuasion) for the identification, design and
testing of new practices; 3) promote practices which combine
elements familiar to peasants, are simple, of minimal
uncertainty, show short-term returns, and can be sequentially
adopted; and 4) explicitly aim at reinforcing local innovative
capacity.
APPENDIX
Table 1. Description of group membership and technique adoption
Category Variable
Total no. of "groupman" (gp). 114
Total no. of gp members (gpm). 1046
No. of gpm who are not potential adopters ("i.e." aged or
schoolchildren). 285
No. of gpm who have adopted techniques. 571
No. adopters who are not gpm. 184
Total no. of adopters. 755
No. of gp founded upon pre-existing labor exchange groups. 13
No. of gp which currently operate as labor exchange groups. 53
No. of gp which implement techniques as a group. 27
No. of gpm of labor exchange gp who have adopted techniques. 261
Manner in which gpm implement techniques (reported as % of
n = 85 farmers):
individually ("pou kont yo"). 32
cooperatively, in a labor exchange gp ("asosye"). 49
share labor with one other farmer ("boukante maten"). 19
Reasons given by non-adopting gpm for not adopting techniques
(% of n = 71):
I do not have time to implement the techniques. 39
I do not own land. 21
I do not have land appropriate for the techniques promoted. 17
I hire labor for all agricultural tasks. 10
I do know how to implement the techniques. 10
Another reason not listed above. 3
Notes:
1. The techniques referred to in this table are soil conservation
techniques which can be implemented by a single individual.
2. Figures presented for the "Manner in which gpm implement
techniques" and the "Reasons non-adopting gpm for not adopting
techniques" categories are results of a stratified random sample
of at least 10 farmers from each category in each of seven
comparable zones. The null hypothesis that proportions were the
same for each response in each category was tested with the X
squared statistic. This hypothesis was not accepted at the .05
significance level for either category.
3. Data collected in Maissade, Haiti, September, 1990.
Table 2. Association between group membership, labor acquisition
and technique adoption
Category Labor Acquisition Type (%)
individual group pair hire n
Adopting gpm 25 43 18 13 83
Non-adopting gpm 23 34 38 6 86
Adopting non-gpm 32 18 31 17 70
Non-adopting non-gpm 38 14 26 22 85
Notes:
1. The techniques referred to in this table are soil conservation
techniques which can be implemented by single individuals.
2. Figures presented are results of a stratified random sample of
at least 10 farmers from each category in seven comparable zones.
3. Labor acquisition type refers to the predominant manner in
which farmers in each category acquire labor for major
agricultural tasks (tilling, planting, weeding, harvesting of
cereal crops).
4. Labor acquisition types are explained as follows:
individual: the farmer works individually ("pou kont yo");
group: the farmer works as a member of a labor exchange group
("asosye"); pair: the farmer works with one other farmer
("boukante maten"); and hire: the farmer hires day labor
("bay djob").
5. Statistical analysis: The X squared statistic was used to
compare type proportions between categories.
Test 1 The null hypothesis that true type proportions are the
same for all category populations was rejected (X squared =
34.84; p = < 0.0001; df = 9).
Test 2 The null hypothesis that true type proportions are the
same for gpm adopting and gpm non-adopting category populations
was rejected (X squared = 9.97; p = 0.019; df = 3).
Test 3 The null hypothesis that true type proportions are the
same for non-gpm non-adopting, and non-gpm adopting was accepted
(X squared = 1.66; p = 0.647; df = 3).
Test 4 The null hypothesis that true type proportions are the
same for gpm adopting, and non-gpm adopting was rejected (X
squared = 11.23; p = 0.011; df = 3).
Test 5 The null hypothesis that true type proportions are the
same for gpm non-adopting, and non-gpm non-adopting was rejected
(X squared = 19.53; p = < 0.0001; df = 3).
6. Statistical analysis: A 3-way table was established and
log-linear analysis used to test for interaction between
technique adoption, group membership, and labor acqusition type.
Nine models were tested, and the model with group and labor
interaction independent of adoption provided the best fit as the
p value was highest and the AIC lowest of all models.
Model p-value df G2 AIC
Labor Group Adoption .0001 10 36.32 32.32
Adoption Group*Labor .1256 7 11.49 13.49
Labor Group*Adoption <.001 9 35.81 33.81
Group Labor*Adoption <.001 7 32.72 34.72
Labor*Adoption Adoption*Group <.001 6 32.22 36.22
Adoption*Labor Labor*Group .0988 4 7.89 15.89
Adoption*Group Group*Labor .0954 6 10.98 14.98
Labor*Group Labor*Adoption Group*Adoption
.0545 3 7.70 17.70
Labor*Group*Adoption 1.000 0 0.00 16.00
As a test, single term partialization was used to test the
significance of the separate u-terms. The u(adoption,labor) and
the u(adoption,group) terms were not significant at the .05
level, and thus the model of choice is the [adoption labor*group]
model. The u-terms for the labor type, group interaction from
the [adoption labor*group] model are as follows:
labor type group member non-member
individual -.15516931 .15516931
group .46946687 -.46946704
pair .02469033 -.02469033
hire -.33898789 .33898818
7. Data collected in Maissade, Haiti, September, 1990.
NOTES
1. Land security should not be confused with land tenure.
Various land tenure arrangements exist in Haiti, and the degree
to which a farmer is assured control over the benefit of the soil
conservation technique, not necessarily tenure, directly affects
adoption.
2. This theory corresponds to and is consistent with a three
dimensional model for analyzing soil conservation independently
generated by G. Murray in October of 1991 (Murray 1991). He
proposes that soil conservation be analyzed as a behavior
evolving within three interlinked components: 1) technoeconomic;
2) organizational; and 3) ideational. He also proposes that the
technoeconomic component has greater strength than the others and
usually drives behavioral evolution.
3. Literally translated, this means "soil conservation group."
4. The term "thrifty" is used synonymously with "economically
efficient."
REFERENCES
Agarwal, Bina 1983. "Diffusion of Rural Innovations: Some
Analytical Issues and the Case of Wood-burning Stoves," WORLD
DEVELOPMENT, 11:4:359-376.
AID 1990. Gestion des Ressources Naturelles en Vue d'un
Develloppement Durable en Haiti: Rapport Interimaire.
Association Internationale de Developpement (AID).
BDPA/SCET/AGRI/Ministere de l'Economie et des Finances.
Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Barnett, H. G. 1953. INNOVATION: THE BASIS OF CULTURAL CHANGE.
New York: McGraw Hill.
BREDA 1988. Etude Comparitive de 22 Projets d'Amenagement de
Bassins Versants et de Reboisement. STABV/MARNDR.
Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Cernea, Michael M. 1989. USER GROUPS AS PRODUCERS IN
PARTICIPATORY AFFORESTATION STRATEGIES. Washington, D.C. World
Bank Discussion Paper No. 70.
Chambers, Robert. 1989. "Reversals, Institutions and Change." In
Chambers et al. (eds), FARMER FIRST, FARMER INNOVATION AND
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH. London: Intermediate Technology Press,
chapter 4.4.
de Janvry, Alain and Jean-Jacques Dethier 1985. TECHNOLOGICAL
INNOVATION IN AGRICULTURE: THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF ITS RATE
AND BIAS. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. CGIAR Study Paper
Number 1.
de Young, Maurice 1958. MAN AND THE LAND IN THE HAITIAN ECONOMY.
Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Dupuy, Alex 1989. HAITI IN THE WORLD ECONOMY: CLASS, RACE, AND
UNDERDEVELOPMENT SINCE 1700. Boulder and London: Westview Press.
Farmer, Paul 1988. "Blood, Sweat, and Baseballs: Haiti in the
West Atlantic System," DIALECTICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 13:83-89.
Gerner, Karl 1990. Caritas d'Haiti. Technical Assistant to the
"Moveman Paysan Papay" project. Personal communication,
Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Gudeman, Stephen 1991. "Remodeling the House of Economics:
Culture and Innovation," AMERICAN ETHNOLOGIST, 19:1:139-152.
Herskovits, Melville J. 1971. LIFE IN A HAITIAN VALLEY. Garden
City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company.
Huizer, Gerrit 1970. "Resistance to Change" and Radical Peasant
Mobilization: Foster and Erasmus Reconsidered. HUMAN
ORGANIZATION, 29(4):303-322.
Kash, Dan 1989. PERPETUAL INNOVATION. New York: Basic Books.
Lilin, Charles 1986. "Evolution des Pratiques de Conservation
des Sols dans les Pays en Developpement." In DOCUMENTS SYSTEMES
AGRAIRES; No. 6 Tome II; Actes de IIIeme Seminaire, Montpellier,
16 - 19 Decembre, 1986. CIRAD, Montpellier, France.
Lilin, Charles and A. P. Koohafkan 1987. TECHNIQUES BIOLOGIQUES
DE CONSERVATION DES SOLS EN HAITI. Projet: Centre de Formation en
Amenagement Integre des Mornes, Organization des Nations Unis
Pour L'Alimentation de L'Agriculture and Ministere de
L'Agriculture de Ressources Naturelles et du Developpement Rural.
Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Lowenthal, Ira P. 1989. SOCIAL SOUNDNESS ANALYSIS OF THE
NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR AGROFORESTRY. DAI/DESFIL, Washington, D.C.
Metraux, Alfred. 1972. VOODOO IN HAITI. (Originally published by
Oxford University Press in 1959.) New York: Schocken Books.
Metraux, Rhoda. 1952. "Affiliations Through Work in Marbial,
Haiti," PRIMITIVE MAN: QUARTERLY BULLETIN OF THE CATHOLIC
ANTHROPOLOGICAL CONFERENCE, 25(1-2):1-22.
Mintz, Sidney W. 1974a. CARIBBEAN TRANSFORMATIONS. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company.
Mintz, Sidney W. 1974b. "The Rural Proletariat and the Problem of
Rural Proletarian Consciousness," JOURNAL OF PEASANT STUDIES,
1(3):290-325.
Moral, Paul 1978. LE PAYSAN HAITIEN: ETUDE SUR LA VIE RURALE EN
HAITI. (Originally published in 1961) Port-au-Prince, Haiti: Les
Editions Fardin.
Murray, Gerald F. 1978. HILLSIDE UNITS, WAGE LABOR, AND RURAL
HAITIAN LAND TENURE: A PROPOSAL FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF EROSION
CONTROL PROJECTS. Report to USAID, Port au Prince, Haiti.
Murray, Gerald F. 1979. TERRACES, TREES, AND THE HAITIAN PEASANT:
TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF EROSION CONTROL IN RURAL HAITI. Report for
US Agency for International Development/Haiti. Port-au-Prince,
Haiti.
Murray, Gerald F. 1980. "Population Pressure, Land Tenure, and
Voodoo: The Economics of Haitian Peasant Ritual." In BEYOND THE
MYTHS OF CULTURE: ESSAYS IN CULTURAL MATERIALSIM. Academic Press.
Murray, G. F. 1990. LAND TENURE AND TREES ON THE PLATEAU CENTRAL:
ANTHROPOLOGICAL GUIDELINES FOR PROJECT DESIGN IN HAITI. Report to
OAS: Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Murray, G. F. 1991. A THREE DIMENSIONAL MODEL FOR ANALYZING SOIL
CONSERVATION ANTHROPOLOGICAL CASE STUDY FROM THE DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC. Report prepared for the World Bank. First Draft.
Njoku, Jude E. nd. DETERMINANTS OF ADOPTION OF IMPROVED OIL-PALM
PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES IN IMO STATE, NIGERIA. African Rural
Social Science Series, Winrock International Institute for
Agricultural Development. Research Report Number 10.
Paskett, C. J. and C. E. Philocete 1990. Soil Conservation in
Haiti. JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION, July-August:
457-459.
Pierre-Jean, Luc 1991. Director of the Watershed Management
Secretariat, Ministry of Agriculture. Damien, Haiti. Personal
communication.
Rogers, Everett M. 1983. DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS, Third Edition.
New York: The Free Press.
Ruttan, Vernon W. and Yujiro Hayami 1984. "Induced Innovation
Model of Agricultural Development." In Carl K. Eicher & John M.
Staatz (eds), AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE THIRD WORLD.
London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 59-75.
SCF 1988. RAPPORT COUVRANT LA PERIODE DU 1ER OCTOBRE 1987 AU 31
JUILLET 1988. Projet de Developpement des Resources Locales (LORD
I). Save the Children Federation (SCF). Port-au-Prince,Haiti.
SCF 1990. RAPPORT COUVRANT LA PERIODE D'AOUT A OCTOBRE 1989 ET
DE JANVIER A MARS 1990. Save the Children Federation (SCF).
Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Schaedel Richard P. 1962. AN ESSAY ON THE HUMAN RESOURCES OF
HAITI. Report to USAID/Haiti. Port-au-Prince: U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID).
Schumpeter, J. A. 1971. "The Fundamental Phenomenon of Economic
Development." In P. Kilby (ed.) ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT. New York: The Free Press, 43-70.
Smucker, Glenn R. 1983. PEASANTS AND DEVELOPMENT POLITICS: A
STUDY IN HAITIAN CLASS AND CULTURE. Ph.D. Dissertation. Graduate
Faculty, New School for Social Research. Ann Arbor: University
Microfilms International.
Smucker, Glenn R. 1986. Peasant Councils And The Politics of
Community. In POLITICS, PROJECTS AND PEOPLE: INSTITUTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT IN HAITI. New York: Praeger Special Studies.
Smucker, Glenn R. 1990. Personal Communication. August 16, 1990.
Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 1990. HAITI: STATE AGAINST THE NATION;
THE ORIGINS AND LEGACY OF DUVALIERISM. New York: Monthly Review
Press. 282 pp.
USAID, 1985. HAITI COUNTRY ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE: A FIELD STUDY.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
White, Thomas A. 1992. PEASANT COOPERATION FOR MICRO-WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT IN MAISSADE, HAITI: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES, METHODS AND
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS. Forestry for Sustainable Development
Program, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota.
Converted from gopher on 8/6/1999