Ester Boserup: an Interdisciplinary Visionary Relevant for Sustainability
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RETROSPECTIVE Ester Boserup: An interdisciplinary visionary relevant for sustainability B. L. Turner IIa,b,1 and Marina Fischer-Kowalskic Schools of aGeographical Sciences and Urban Planning; bSustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85268; and cInstitute for Social Ecology, Alpen Adria Universität, A-1070 Vienna, Austria argely unfettered by disciplinary structures) landscapes, the historical dogma, Ester Boserup observed dimensions on which Boserup elaborated Lhuman–environment relation- in Population and Technological Change: ships through an expansive ana- A Study of Long-Term Trends (6). lytical lens. Her ideas on agricultural The endogeneity of the techno-mana- change, gender, and development shook gerial strategies of agriculture was foun- up research and practice in the mid-1960s dational to her thesis and influenced the and early 1970s and remain cogent half induced innovation thesis explaining a century later for the development di- the contemporary pathways of investment mensions of sustainability. In this 100th in and use of agricultural technology year since her birth, it is worthwhile to at large (7). Despite this, Boserup’s thesis take stock of her impact on research was not well-developed regarding quali- and practice and how her ideas continue tative shifts in technology (e.g., to fossil to shape and be reshaped by current fuels) that fundamentally change land– research. labor and thus, structural relationships in society (8). She did trace the broad Background strokes of industrial technology on Born in Copenhagen on May 18, 1910, agriculture in sparsely populated and Ester Borgesen graduated as Ester underdeveloped lands (6) and argued that Boserup in 1935 with a Candidatus it was not applicable to some subsistence Politices, a degree she described as mostly farmers because the relative costs of la- theoretical economics plus courses in so- bor- vs. industrial-based foods favored ciology and agricultural policy (1). She nonadoption (p. 120 in ref. 4). These worked for the Danish government concerns, however, were not explicitly (1935–1947), during which time she gave Ester Boserup. inserted into her base thesis. birth to three children, and the United Second, Boserup’s early work disputed Nations (UN) Economic Commission of assumptions about farming behavior ap- Europe (1947–1965) on agricultural trade ered and enthusiastically embraced by other plied in development. Mirroring the ideas policy. In this last capacity, she and her social sciences, especially those parts of of the Russian A.V. Chayanov, she ar- husband, Mogens Boserup, worked in anthropology and geography dealing with gued that the behavior of subsistence farmers differed from commercial ones India from 1957 to 1960, an experience smallholder (quasi) subsistence farming ‡ that transformed her view on agricultural systems. The Conditions of Agricultural (9). Subsistence farmers responded to development. Returning to Denmark, Growth has been published by five different household (consumption) more so than Boserup took on consultancies and served publishing houses in 17 issues from 1965 market demand and sought to minimize on various commissions as she penned to 2008 and has been translated into French, risk to household needs, not maximize her most important works, at least two of gain, affecting the allocation of land, la- Swedish, Japanese, and Estonian. § which would have far-reaching impacts on The large and sustained impact of bor, and landesque capital. Farmers interdisciplinary research and real world this work has at least a threefold expla- practice, become the subjects of intensive nation. First, it addressed an enduring academic scrutiny, and led to her award of theme—the relationship between pop- Author contributions: B.L.T. and M.F.-K. wrote the paper. three honorary doctorate degrees in the ulation and environmental resources— The authors declare no conflict of interest. agricultural (Wageningen University), which has regularly resurfaced in differ- 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: economic (Copenhagen University), and ent expressions at least since the work of [email protected]. human sciences (Brown University). Bo- Thomas Malthus in 1798. Boserup *For details on the life of Ester Boserup, see refs. 1–3 and serup was elected Foreign Associate of the challenged his proposition that the rela- http://irenetinker.com/publications-and-presentations/ National Academy of Sciences, United tively slow growth in the food ceiling ester-boserup. † States, in 1989. She died in Geneva, served as the upper limit for the more Boserup was not the first to link land (or population) Switzerland, on September 24, 1999.* fast-paced potential growth in popula- pressures to intensification (5), but she was the first tion. She reversed the causality, arguing to set the relationship into a conceptual model spe- Agricultural Change cifically aimed at agricultural change (see the work by that increases in population (or land) A.V. Chayanov and C. Geertz noted in this text). Boserup erupted on the international trans- pressure trigger the development or use ‡ One of us (B.L.T.) once asked Boserup why she did not cite disciplinary scene in 1965 with her landmark of technologies and management strate- Chayanov in her own work. She replied that she had never book The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: gies to increase production commensu- read or heard of Chayanov at the time and explained the The Economics of Agrarian Change Under rate with demand. Agricultural intensity, close similarities of their logic to the fact that both he and Population Pressure (4). This brief non- thus, rises with population density (or she were essentially drawing on the same school of technical work offered a powerful set of land pressures in related literatures) economic thought. † § ideas in opposition to neo-Malthusian and holding mediating factors constant. Landesque capital is a term used in human, political, and cultural ecology and land change science to refer to per- other prevailing ideas of the time applied Over the long run, this process trans- manent land improvements for production, such as ter- to agricultural development. Turned down forms the physical and social (e.g., land race or irrigation systems, especially among noncommercial by several publishers, her book was discov- tenure, labor markets, and other societal land managers. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1013972108 PNAS | December 21, 2010 | vol. 107 | no. 51 | 21963–21965 Downloaded by guest on September 26, 2021 shifted from known techno-managerial Women in Development the developing world might reduce family strategies or explored innovations in them Drawing on field observations in India but size. This observation thrust Boserup into only if land–labor dynamics pressured blossoming during her subsequent experi- the UN World Population Conference them to do so. This production logic was ences in Senegal, Boserup challenged de- in Bucharest in 1974 and subsequent in- subsequently shown to be present side by velopment research and practice yet again ternational programs addressing popu- side or variously mixed with market be- with the release in 1970 of Woman’sRolein lation. Interestingly, demographers would havior among many smallholder house- Economic Development (49). Her thesis subsequently show that drops in the fer- holds worldwide (10–14). tility rates worldwide track with the level was so obvious in hindsight, it is somewhat ¶ Third, Boserup questioned neo- difficult to understand why it was so chal- of women’s education (65, 66). Malthusian and related assumptions per- lenging. Women have always been an im- WID and Boserup continue to draw at- meating development practice, especially portant component in the practice of tentionfromalternativeviewswithingender that smallholder subsistence farmers were agriculture beyond the corporate–com- studies at large. Critique holds that WID is, at the mercy of their own population dy- mercial farming systems of the world, but at its base, a “neoclassical economic con- namics and in desperate need of techno- their consideration was missing in eco- struct,” which is insufficiently nuanced and managerial assistance to intensify pro- nomic theory and development practice of too focused on questions of education duction. Her ideas were heard and ex- the time. Boserup argued that Western-led within the modernization paradigm (51, 58, plored by major institutions involved in development reduced the status of and 67). WID is accused of failing to consider agricultural and rural development, in- opportunities for women. Her challenge to domestic production and isolating repro- cluding the World Bank (15–18). rectify this omission is credited, even by ductive from productive work (51, 68, 69). If Boserup’s thesis remains important to- her critics (50–59), with helping to inspire this challenge is applicable for WID, it day for the various subfields contributing the UN Decade for Women (1976–1985). seems odd to extend it to Boserup, if only by to sustainable development. Its founda- Indeed, the UN Development Program implication. After all, her agricultural in- tions have been tested—showing the distributed a summary of her book at the terests were directed to household or do- ability to explain the variance in the in- first World Conference on Women held in mestic production, and her gender gap is tensity of subsistence-like cultivation— Mexico City in 1975, the UN’s Interna- predicated on understanding that modern- and variously elaborated