Full-Text (PDF)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Vol.12(3), pp. 48-56 July-September 2020 DOI: 10.5897/JAERD2019.1103 Articles Number: 21E806C64243 ISSN: 2141-2170 Copyright ©2020 Journal of Agricultural Extension and Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournals.org/JAERD Rural Development Full Length Research Paper Local appropriation of socio-technical innovation: Case study of the shared mechanisation in Benin Ismail MOUMOUNI-MOUSSA Laboratory of Research on Innovation for Agricultural Development, Faculty of Agronomy, University of Parakou, Benin. Received 28 September, 2019; Accepted 22 January, 2020 The paper explored different processes of appropriation that sustain experiences of shared mechanisation in Benin. It analyzed the links between groups’ homogeneity, the member’s representations of shared mechanisation and the processes of setting cost recovery rules for sustainable utilization of farm equipments. We identified some gaps between formal and applied rules in cooperatives and revealed that controlling socio-cultural homogeneity is an upstream strategy used by group leaders to ensure shared values and ease collective action rules making. The challenges faced by cooperatives can lead to the expression of latent heterogeneity factors, justifying a need for permanent rule negotiation. Key words: Appropriation, Benin, collective action, group homogeneity, shared mechanisation, socio-technical innovation. INTRODUCTION The motorization of agriculture is still a challenge in many lands are available, the mechanisation appeared as an developing countries although this is required to promote appropriate solution. However, individual farmers can large scale agricultural investments (Sanou et al., 2019). hardly afford a tractor. There was a need for the In Africa, up to 80% of lands are manually cultivated, sustainable institutions, which can make it possible for 16% are cultivated with animal traction and only 4% are small farmers to switch over to large scale agriculture. cultivated with motorized traction (van der Meijden, The organisational model of the farm machinery co- 1998). African agriculture is kept by smallholders operative (CUMA: Coopérative d’Utilisation de Matériels practicing mainly subsistence farming and there is a Agricoles) was adopted to be generalised over the potential for increasing cultivating lands. For instance in country. The CUMA is a form of collective property, Benin, where smallholders cultivate on average 0.5 to 3 organisation and utilisation of farm machineries in ha, only 37.6% of the agricultural land potential are used. contrast with the individual form of property. CUMA is a The Government of Benin planned in 2006 to promote cooperative which aims at providing its members with mechanisation. Subsequently, a National Council for agricultural equipments services such as plough with farm Agricultural Mechanisation and a National Agency for the machineries. The credo of CUMA is “Let us modernise Promotion of Agricultural Mechanisation were created to together our agriculture through shared mechanisation”. lead the process of mechanisation of agriculture (MAEP, Shared mechanisation is the utilisation of farm 2006). Especially in North Benin where large extents of machineries by a group of farmers gathered in E-mail: [email protected]. Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License Moumouni-Moussa 49 cooperative at the possible lowest cost, according to the processes. Strong support was found for the positive need of each member, through the “mutualization” of the relationship between innovation and human capital charges (Baris and Grange, 2008, Balse et al., 2015). (Dakhli and De Clercq, 2004) and social capital (Landry The CUMA model was introduced in Benin first in 1995 et al., 2002). Nevertheless, recent studies show that the with the support of AFDI (Agriculteurs Français et influence of social capital on innovation is not as relevant Développement International) Dordogne and the as expected (Cáceres-Carrasco et al., 2019). Dordogne Department Federation of CUMA of France. An experimental phase was conducted in Bembereke district (Borgou-Alibori Department) in the framework of THEORETICAL BACKGROUND the Program for the Professionalisation of Agriculture in Benin financed by French Development Cooperation. Debate on the issue of group heterogeneity in collective After many years, the suitable form of CUMA in North action is structured mainly by two questions. The first Benin was shaped. A CUMA should (i) be officially question is about which factors are worth being registered, (ii) operate in a delimited area, (iii) work considered to establish heterogeneity, and the second is exclusively for its members who must subscribe shares whether heterogeneity facilitates or impedes collective for five years renewable, and (iv) make decision action? Heterogeneity can refer to variations in (i) political according the principle of “one person, one vote”. The factors such as agreement on the legitimacy of leaders, profile of CUMA adopted in Benin is the one with about (ii) socio-demographic factors such as sex, age, 10 members cultivating altogether 100 ha per year and language, ethnicity, education, etc. or/and, (iii) economic putting together a part of their resources to acquire and factors directly associated with public good such as use farm machineries including one tractor, one plow and interest in it, resources available to contribute to its one trailer. The experience was successful and the production, cost of those contributions, etc. (Oliver et al., number of CUMA has increased (Baris and Grange 1985; Marwell et al., 1988; Velded, 2000; Adhikari and 2008). Lovett, 2006; Gehrig et al., 2019). These two sets of Many studies conducted on the mechanisation of factors are related so that studies of the latter types of agriculture in developing countries mainly dealt with the heterogeneity may enhance our understanding of the impact of mechanisation on the performance of demographic factors (Heckathorn 1993). Therefore, agriculture, the reduction of the strenuousness of instead of focusing on heterogeneity factors (wealth, agricultural activities and the sustainability of agricultural locational differences, sociocultural differences) only, systems. These studies revealed that the mechanisation Varughese and Ostrom (2001) suggested to question of agriculture makes it possible (i) for farmers to save how these variables are embedded in different situations labor and increase their cultivated land and incomes to influence negotiation and sustaining agreements. (Clavel et al., 2008), and for men and women as well to On the other hand, research findings diverge on the invest the saved time in other activities (Persiguel, 1997; impact of group heterogeneity on collective action (Kölle, Faure, 1994; FAO, 2008). Beside these advantages, the 2015). Beyond both competing thoughts - that mechanisation of agriculture can also threaten the natural emergence of cooperative behaviour is very difficult to resources (Persiguel, 1997; Pingali et al., 1987; Bigot and get with highly heterogeneous agents (Seabright, 1993; Raymond, 1991; Faure, 1994; Houmy, 2008; FAO, 2008). Kant, 2000; Dayton-Johnson, 2000; Apparao et al., 2019) Emphasis was put on technical aspects of mechanisation. and that group heterogeneity is conducive to collective The shared mechanisation is a socio-technical package, action (Olson, 1965; Udehn, 1993; Baland and Platteau, suggesting a certain type of organisation in addition to 1996) - came out some more shaded and more complex the modern plowing technology. In a context where many explanatory models (Oliver et al., 1985; Marwell et al., new top-down agricultural technologies were rejected by 1988; Heckathorn, 1993; Vedeld, 2000; Poteete and farmers, the shared mechanisation which apart from Ostrom, 2004; Gautam, 2007; Gehrig et al., 2019). For being also top-down is more complex was successful. instance, Oliver et al. (1985) and Marwell et al. (1988) The paper aims at analysing different processes of argued that heterogeneity of interest increases collective appropriation leading to the sustainable use of the shared action, and heterogeneity of resources has a null effect or mechanisation. Specifically, the paper analyses the links a positive effect on collective action while Heckathorn between group homogeneity, the representations of (1993) posited that, heterogeneity of interests can shared mechanisation, the processes of setting rules impede collective action under certain circumstances by within the CUMA and the achievements with regard to polarising a group into opposing subgroups. Uler (2019) CUMA original objectives. We assumed that cooperative came with a more shaded point of view that leaders try in different ways to control group heterogeneity can increase or reduce social cooperation heterogeneity to ensure the establishment of shared depending on context: “Heterogeneity augments collective values, to ease rules crafting for sustainable utilisation of action when that action's success is most problematic or farm equipments. This paper contributes to understanding the benefits of contributing are uncertain. (...)Increases in how social capital is enhancing innovation systems and heterogeneity can promote social change in two ways: By 50 J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. weakening existing social power and by fostering the 77,354 inhabitants) in Northern Benin, where the shared organisation