Research on agriculture structures: Evolution and teachings

In France, theories claiming to account for the various types of farming and for the changes which they undergo have followed one another since the end of World War II at an impressive rate. They have foretold either the inevitable disappearance or the healthy development of various farming systems, only to find that at the next stage the continuation or stagnation of those systems is still to be observed and has still to be explained. Thus we have first shifted from the assertion that there are specific characteristics of farming which cannot be overlooked to the idea that the farm may be regarded as a firm like any other, and today the present condition of farming is being explained in terms of the social relations of the capitalist system. On account of this evolution, which will be defined more accurately below, we are now faced with a diversity of analyses and doctrines dealing with the process of structural change in agriculture. This diversity raises such questions as: How can such a rapid succession of theories be accounted for? Which change does it imply in the researchers' approach? What are the repercussions on the orientation of agricultural policies? Such are the questions we intend to deal with in this article. The answer to these questions seems to us to be important if we are to understand the place of agriculture in our society and to give proper guidance to policy-makers and professional leaders, some of whom are somewhat disconcerted by the inefficient working of the theoretical models upon which their actions, their thinking and even their hopes have hitherto been based. Moreover, by exploring these questions we shall be in a better position to see the doctrines and their developments in relation to one another. In this analysis of the evolution of the different lines of approach to research on agricultural structures, we shall immediately rule out the hypothesis that, either out of ingenuousness or from selfish motives, intellectuals are thrilled with themselves for rediscovering phenomenon which they had previously said were certain to disappear. Indeed, to keep changing one's ideas might be a way of fighting againsttheir obsolescence. That would be typical of our modern society, and the very same persons who strenuously denounce it can sometimes be found to be behaving in conformity to it. More fundamentally we shall first consider the evolution of attitudes to research problems over time before trying to assess their present condition. In each case, our approach will consist in seeking out the nationality granted to the agents under consideration. Is this rationality specific to the structure of agriculture and, if so, how can that special situation be accounted for? Lastly, this paper obviously does not intend to appraise the whole trend of ideas in agricultural economics: In the first place, it is concerned only with the structure of production: and secondly, it does not examine the various ideas which have been circulating in the agricultural profession, but confines itself to research work.