IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Agricultural Resilience According To Indigenous Knowledge-Based Case Studies And Economic Quantitative International Production Studies: Divergent Realities Or Divergent Representation?




This study essentially seeks to assess the reconcilability of two themes of sustainable agriculture as a means to attenuating the sustainable agriculture impasse. It responds to the following question: relative to apparently pro-modernization international production studies, which element of pro-indigenous-knowledge case studies is atypical: the micro-environments studied or the methodologies deployed? In terms of methodology, the study applies the method of seemingly unrelated regression to a panel dataset of 124 countries mainly over the period 1981-2005 to estimate meta-production functions. The estimated coefficients are then used to evaluate series of values of the marginal physical/value productivity of agricultural land for each country. These values are used as indicators of agricultural resilience. The results of the analysis, which prove to be robust to the measure of agricultural output among other things, suggest that the resilience of national agricultural systems falls with increasing use of external inputs. It is demonstrated that this finding implies that agricultural resilience is eroded when Western science and technology is introduced from the angle of trying to replace rather than foster indigenous knowledge based systems. The contribution of this thesis has several implications for development and research policy. In general, economic analysis may need to (more fully) embrace the challenge of reworking its methods and approaches of research not least by opening up to alternative realities. In terms of development policy, the study unsettles the primacy of Western development, and reinforces evidence to the effect that sustainable agriculture might require enhancing, rather than nihilistically replacing, indigenous knowledges.

Suggested Citation

  • Moyo, Dumisani Zondiwe, 2012. "Agricultural Resilience According To Indigenous Knowledge-Based Case Studies And Economic Quantitative International Production Studies: Divergent Realities Or Divergent Representation?," Research Theses 157594, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:cmpart:157594
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.157594

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Angeles, Luis, 2007. "Income inequality and colonialism," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(5), pages 1155-1176, July.
    2. Barbara J. Craig & Philip G. Pardey & Johannes Roseboom, 1997. "International Productivity Patterns: Accounting for Input Quality, Infrastructure, and Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(4), pages 1064-1076.
    3. Craig, Barbara J. & Pardey, Philip G. & Roseboom, Johannes, 1994. "International Agricultural Productivity Patterns," Working Papers 14470, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    4. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    5. Rigby, Dan & Caceres, Daniel, 1997. "The Sustainability of Agricultural Systems," Rural Resources\Rural Livelihoods Working Papers 30574, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    6. anonymous, 2012. "Digest 2012," Research Digest, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
    7. Hausman, Jerry, 2015. "Specification tests in econometrics," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 38(2), pages 112-134.
    8. Nissanke, Machiko K, 2001. "Financing Enterprise Development in Sub-Saharan Africa," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 343-367, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    International Relations/Trade;


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:cmpart:157594. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.