University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 4B106 USA St
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quelity of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. Whan an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a smalt overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have Indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 4B106 USA St. John's Road, Tyler's Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 8HR 77-10,571 MESSMER, William Bruce, 1941- SOVIET AGRICULTURE AND THE THIRD WORLD: A CASE STUDY OF CUBA. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1976 Political Science, general Xerox University MicrofilmsAnn , Arbor, Michigan 48106 © Copyright by William Bruce Messmer 1976 SOVIET AGRICULTURE AND THE THIRD WORLD: A CASE STUDY OF CUBA DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By William Bruce Messmer, B.A., M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 1976 Approved By Reading Committee; Philip D. Stewart Jan Adams David Lampton dvlser Departmental of Political Science VITA June 3, 1941 Born, Dayton, Ohio 1963 B.A., Otterbeln College, Westerville, Ohio 1969 M.A.» Ohio University, Athens, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Political Science Subfields: Comparative Politics and Political Theory 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VITA................................................... 11 LIST OF TABLES................... v LIST OF FIGURES.................. vi INTRODUCTION........................................... 1 Chapter I. CUBAN AGRICULTURAL IN PERSPECTIVE....... 16 Prerevolutionary Agriculture In Cuba........ 17 Agricultural Goals of the Castro Leadership. .. 23 Strategies for Development In Cuban Agricultural . 32 II. SOVIET AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTIONS: THE COMMAND PRODUCTION M ODEL............................ 47 The Evolution of the Soviet Agricultural System. 48 The Elements of the Command Model.......... 53 The Soviet Model of Agriculture.......... 73 The Soviet Model in the Cuban Context....... 76 III. CUBAN UNITS OF PRODUCTION: THE TRANSITION FROM TRADITIONAL TO SOCIALIST AGRICULTURE............. * 81 Traditional Agricultural Prodcutlon Units.... 82 Post-Revolutionary Changes: The First Agrarian Reform................................. 85 Cuban Adoption of Soviet Type Production Units . 92 A Comparison of Soviet and Cuban Units of Production.............................. 99 The Adoption of New Units of Production: Problems and Alternatives.................. 103 Conclusion................................. 125 ill Page IV. AGRICULTURAL ADMINISTRATION IN...CUBA............ 133 Agricultural Administration: 1959-60. ........... 133 Agricultural Administration: 1961-63 . ...... 136 1963-1970: Reorganization and Adoption of the Combines.................... .............. 139 Administration Through 1970: From Anarchy to Militarization............................. 150 Post-1970 Administration: The Return to Orthodoxy.................................. 155 A Comparison of Cuban and Soviet Agricultural Administration............................... 157 The Problems Resulting From the Adoption of a Command Agricultural Administration............. 159 Conclusion.....................................176 V. PLANNING IN CUBAN AGRICULTURE...................... 187 The Organizational Structure of Agricultural Planning.....................................188 A Comparison of Cuban and Soviet Agricultural Planning.....................................202 The Problems Resulting From the Adoption of Central Planning in C u b a ...................... 204 Conclusion.......... 216 VI. THE SOVIET MODEL AND THE CUBAN EXPERIENCE............ 224 A Pattern of Deviation From the Model............. 225 The Cuban Experience and Institution Building Theory...................................... 231 A Final Comment................................. 246 BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................. 250 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Soviet Production Units....................... 60 3.1 Cuban Farms by Size Groups, 1945 ......... 84 3.2 Distribution of Land and Employment By Type of Organization, August, 1961.................. 96 3.3 Cuban Production Units ....................... 98 6.1 Agricultural Production in Cuba: 1957- 74 ....... 242 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 Soviet: Ministry of Agriculture................ 64 2.2 Soviet Ministry of Agriculture and Party Structure................................. 68 2.3 Administrative Structure of Ministry of Agriculture, Party and Production Un i t....... 71 4.1 INRA Structure Circa 1960......... 137 4.2 INRA Structure Circa 1916-62 .................. 140 4.3 Agricultural Administration Circa 1963 ......... 144 4.A Agricultural Administration Circa 1970 ......... 148 5.1 Agricultural Planning Organization . ........... 192 vi INTRODUCTION In 1961 Cuba undertook the adoption of the Soviet agricultural system. This dissertation is concerned with the consequences of Cuba's adoption of this system, and the suitability of Soviet agricultural institutions for adoption by less developed nations. The Soviet Union argues that its system of collectivized agri culture, which emphasizes control by the state through a set of highly centralized administrative institutions, should be adopted by Third World nations. It Bhould be adopted, according to the Soviet argument, because state control will provide the best long term answer to Third World agricultural problems of food shortage and distribution. In addition, state control of agriculture through Btate administrative institutions will best enable the regime to channel agricultural resources into efforts toward industrialization.1 Such are the strategic claims for what the Soviet system of agriculture can accomplish once it has been adopted and the institu tions organized and made to function in an efficient manner. A crucial assumption upon which such strategic claims rest is that the institutions can be readily organized and made to function effectively by such nations. In this present work, I am concerned with evaluating this basic assumption. 1 An evaluation of this sort is important not only because we need to judge Soviet assumptions about their institutions, but also because there seems to be a growing feeling among some western writers that authoritarian solutions of the Soviet type are the best answer to the desperate problems of the Third World nations. Professor 1. Robert Sinai, for example, argues that the tasks of development require the destruction of vested interests and cherished traditions, and that such an undertaking can only be done within an authoritarian framework of institutions. Sinai goes further to suggest that communism, while not particularly attractive as a path away from underdevelopment, is the only alternative currently avail able. 2 In a similar vein, Charles K. Wilbur has also argued that the communist approach, particularly the Soviet approach, is worthy of consideration by Third World nations in their efforts to bring about development. Wilbur has written that while the "social costs" of the Soviet approach (in particular the collectivized approach to agriculture) may be high, that the costs of continued underdevelopment are even higher. 3 The explicit arguments made by both Sinai and Wilbur are similar to those made by Soviet writers, which is that state control will enable a modernizing regime to better utilize its national resources, including agriculture production, to meet its own developmental goals. Again, as in the Soviet case, the underlying assumption is that the authoritarian, Soviet-like institutions through which the state may control the economy, and particularly agriculture, can be readily adopted by third world nations. Thus, we need to ' 3 evaluate the adoptability of the Soviet agricultural system, for ourselves as yell as to judge Soviet claims* In contradiction to such assumptions