Search

The following sections are included:Agribusiness Strategies in Emerging Economies: Forces and OutcomesDistributional effects of contracts in emerging economies: Lessons from AfricaDistributional effects of joint venturesDistributional impacts of foreign direct investmentNegotiating an enabling environment: The role of the public sectorPrivate sector initiatives in emerging marketsConclusionsReferences

The political-economic question of this century, in my opinion, is: What is the appropriate balance between government and markets in achieving desired economic objectives? This question is the underlying theme from which many historical transformations have unfolded, especially during the past two decades. Interestingly, those recent transformations-all sharing a common trend from centralized authority to decentralized decision making, from government-based to marketbased decision making-have occurred without conquering armies and without colonial power interventions. Instead, this transformation is largely attributed to the power of, and demand for, "individual choice," in both political and economic arenas, in determining the direction of economic development. This phenomenon has been almost universal. Though Cuba and North Korea stand as notable exceptions, the Soviet Union has disintegrated, elections were held in South Africa, and we now stand poised to observe free-market Hong Kong reunited with the conditionally free-market China. While the drive for more market oriented economic systems has reached its fullest manifestation during the late twentieth century, this trend clearly does not present a new economic question in world history (nor in the history of economic thought). In 600 B.C., Anacharsis of Scythia defined a market as a "place set apart where men may deceive one another." In nineteenth century England, the Corn Laws were established to protect farmers from market forces associated with the industrial revolution. Since the end of World War II, the question of the relative virtues of markets and governments has been at the core of the debates of Milton Friedman's popular Free to Choose and John K. Galbraith's Age of Uncertainty. And with the shutdown of the U.S. government in December 1995, and again in January of th s year, a current example of this central question was dramatically played out in our own political arena.

Economic theory and historical evidence indicate that economic development is a process that transforms agrarian economies into urban, industrial-service, higher income based economies (Lewis). This transformation has taken place in the United States, beginning roughly at the turn of the century and accelerating during the post World War II period. During the last five decades, the farm sector, once the largest economic sector in the United States, has become one of the smallest, accounting for approximately 2% of the GNP, losing 5.4 million workers and declining in net farm income by $45 million (1982 dollars) [Council of Economic Advisers 1987 and 1990; Thurow]. This transformation frees up labor and helps provide capital for industrial and manufacturing sectors of the economy. However, such rapid development also carries economic and social costs, which the nation continues to pay. The agrarian transformation resulted in the outmigration of millions of Americans from the farm to urban and nonfarm rural areas. African

tifying and finding solutions to the problems they face.' Much of this effort has focused on identifying enterprises that are profitable on a small scale; that is, enterprises which require little land and capital but provide a high return to the producer. These alternative crops include new and improved varieties of traditional cash crops and other nontraditional enterprises, such as fruits and vegetables, herbs and spices, ornamentals and specialty animals (French, Whatley). The success of fruit and vegetable producers in California, Florida, Texas, and Arizona has triggered discussions as to whether other areas in the United States, particularly the southern states, could compete with these major producing states (Capps, Babb and Long). Coupled with this push for diversification is the belief that LRFs may benefit from alternative enterprises because they suffer adversely from price fluctuations and low net returns from production of traditional crops. Colette and Wall allude to the high income potentials of vegetables but argue that these crops tend to be very risky enterprises and that LRFs usually have insufficient cash reserves to carry them over a bad year. Efforts have also been directed toward the marketing problems facing LRFs (Christy, Dagher, McLean-Meyinsse). While much attention has been given to alternative enterprises, a full understanding of the marketing system, including market risks, strategies, and alternative market outlets, requires more attention by producers, policy makers, and our profession. Most farmers allocate more time, energy, and resources to production than to marketing. Limited-resource farmers, in general, have not invested the resources required to identify and use viable marketing plans and strategies that can exploit the full potential gains these markets offer sellers of agricultural products. In some cases, LRFs have identified marketing niches and developed innovative marketing strategies (Wysong and Handwerker). The strategic behavior exhibited by small farmers has profit performance implications, such as (a) providing the consumer with high quality, usually fresh products, and (b) gaining the net margins that accrue from performing specific marketing services or functions.