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, , 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 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 , 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) , 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 , 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 (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 and critiqued tional Women’s Year. A digest version of ization disrupts established household (10, 11, 14, 19–25). Substantial work over her book was distributed to all US em- gender roles, which includes reproductive the past decade continues to find links bassies. Boserup not only anticipated and productive elements. Regardless, these between land pressures and agricultural gender studies, or at least their application and other critiques gave rise to Women intensification or show the rudiments of to development, but set strong analytical and Develop (WAD) and Gender and household production logic underpinning standards for engaging the multifaceted Develop (GAD) counterviews. the thesis (22, 23, 26–32). realities of this research and provided Both WAD and GAD view women as Influential ideas are rarely unchallenged the foundation for the Women in De- active agents in the production and de- and so have been Boserup’s ideas. One set velopment (WID) perspective. WID has velopment process and reject their for- of critiques has focused on the paucity received so much attention that de- mer omission in the modernization project of attention given to societal structures velopment practice has lost sight of men, as inadvertent (51, 68, 70). WAD cham- and the processes underlying them for according to some views (60). Woman’s pions a socioeconomic class view in which agricultural change. Boserup insisted that Role in Economic Development has been unempowered men share the same un- social structures mattered for this change released by five publishers in seven issues favorable fates in the development process and development in general but viewed from 1970 to 2007 and has been translated as do most women. This shared position, them as endogenous to changes in land into French, Spanish, Italian, Swedish, WAD argues, changes only if international pressure and technology, changing over and Indonesian. social structures change. GAD, in contrast, the longer term. Neither she nor the initial Boserup and WID observed that women views the roles assigned to both sexes not as research she inspired explored the vari- were discriminated against at all levels of given but as a social construction, and thus, ance in these structures on agricultural the development process in the 1960s and the organization of women in changing intensity, although other potentially im- 1970s (61). Boserup and WID did not re- their roles is a central issue in de- portant factors were discussed. Much at- ject the modernization effort for this velopment. The inequalities of moderni- tention has been given to societal zation must be addressed through omission. Rather, they argued for women fi structures over the last decade (11, 13, 22– to be made an explicit part of the de- structural changes, speci cally political 24), the results of which can be in- velopment program, while paying attention ones, because the institutions discriminat- corporated into the Boserup-inspired in- to cultural variations regarding women’s ing against women may be impervious or duced intensification thesis (24). productive roles. Drawing on historical highly resistant to economic development Induced intensification envelopes a data, Boserup argued that economic de- (51, 58, 69, 70). Recent studies treating constellation of research that has explored velopment created a gender gap (female themes embedded in WID, WAD, and the roles of environment, gender, em- equity) that evolved in a curvilinear man- GAD suggest that elements of all three are powerment, social capital, house- useful for the question at hand (71). ner. Modernization initially enlarged the ’ hold composition, tenure, off-farm employ- gap owing to economic changes that dis- What might have been Boserup sre- ment opportunities, ethnicity, state integrated established household relation- sponse? First and foremost, she was versed policies, level of analytical aggregation, ships, but it subsequently closed the gap, in both normal science and critical theory. ’ Although her professional lens was large, and other factors on agricultural in- especially owing to increased women sed- fi tensification under different land pres- ucation. It is this facet of WID that con- she remained rmly anchored in science sures (23, 31–41). Relaxing assumptions tinues to draw considerable research and attempted to enlarge or expand eco- imposed in Boserup’s scheme, this re- attention. Some field-based tests support nomic analysis rather than replace its sci- search reveals the conditions leading to a proposed curvilinear relationship, or ence base with alternative explanatory the process of land expansion (30, 42–44) parts of it, whereas other studies suggest perspectives. Boserup explicitly recognized or land abandonment and migration (23, a linear relationship in which the gap is not the role of societal structures in the de- 24, 27, 45–47) vs. intensification. This closed (52, 62–64). velopment process. She differed from brings us back to the original enduring Almost in passing, Boserup specu- WAD and GAD positions, perhaps, in that theme and articulation of those con- lated in the conclusion of Women’s Role in ditions leading to Boserupian, Malthu- Economic Development (pp. 224–225) ¶Critiques of the fertility–education relationships remain sian, or other outcomes (48). that increased education for women in (67).

21964 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1013972108 Turner and Fischer-Kowalski Downloaded by guest on September 26, 2021 she viewed structural change as taking research and outreach practice, especially other disciplines than their own” (p. 59 in place over the long term and as endoge- regarding human–environment relation- ref. 1). In this sense, Boserup’s approach nous to the development process: “struc- ships in a development context. Indeed, an remains as important for contemporary tures change under the influence of other even smaller number have drawn the at- sustainability science as do her theses about structures although they may be resistant tention of researchers and scholars holding the sustainability dimensions of agricultural to such changes for shorter or longer pe- such a large range of worldviews. Without change, women, and development. riods, and are changing only when the writing a formula and rarely constructing a diagram, her conceptual or informal pressure is strong or persistent” (p. 58 in ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank Betty Jean Perkins, models of agricultural change and women’s ref. 1). Boserup encouraged economic de- George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University, role in development have been formalized, V. D. Abernethy, Vanderbilt University, and Anette velop research to incorporate this broader tested, and retested, and they remain sig- Reenberg, , for their as- and historical view, even providing nificant for research and practice. Her in- sistance. We appreciate the comments provided by a framework for it (72). sights were gained by a comprehensive R. W. Kates and O. Coomes. This paper was inspired observational lens, the parameters of which by the Ester Boserup Conference 2010: A Centen- Appreciating an Innovative Scholar nial Tribute, held in Vienna, Austria, November were not bound by disciplinary tenets. As 15–17, and sponsored by the Austrian Ministry of Few social scientists of the last half of the she noted, long-term development analysis Science, the City of Vienna, the Austrian Academy twentieth century can match the impacts must be “interdisciplinary and their authors of Sciences, and UniCredit Group (www.boserup- that Boserup has had on interdisciplinary need to follow major developments in some conference.org).

1. Boserup E (1999) My Professional Life and Publications 26. Carswell G (2002) Farmers and fallowing: Agricultural change in 48. Geertz C (1963) Agricultural Involution: The Process of 1929–1995 (Museum Tuscularnum Press, Copenhagen). Kigezi District, Uganda. Geogr J 168:130–140. Ecological Change in Indonesia (University of California 2. Abernethy VD (2005) Ester Boserup and agricultural de- 27. Demont M, Jouve P, Stessens J, Tollens E (2007) Boserup Press, Berkeley, CA). velopment. Society 45:55–58. versus Malthus revisited: Evolution of farming systems in 49. Boserup E (1970) Woman’s Role in Economic Development 3. Tinker I (2004) , Global Tensions: Challenges and Opportunities northern Côte d’Ivoire. Agric Syst 93:215–228. (George Allen and Unwin, London). in the Economy, ed Beneria L (Routledge, London), pp 209–222. 28. Laney RM (2002) Disaggregating induced intensification for 50. Arun S, Arun T (2002) ICT’s : Women in 4. Boserup E (1965) The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: land-change analysis: A case study from Madagascar. Ann software production in Kerala. JIntDev14:39–50. The Economics of Agrarian Change Under Population Assoc Am Geogr 92:702–726. 51. Benería L (2003) Gender, Development, and Globalization: Pressure (Aldine, Chicago). 29. Laney RM (2004) A process-led approach to modeling land Economics as if All People Matters (Routledge, London). 5. Turner BL II, Hanham RQ, Portararo AV (1977) Population change in agricultural landscapes: A case study from Ma- 52. Datta Gupta N (2002) Gender, pay and development: A pressure and agricultural intensity. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 67: dagascar. Agric Ecosyst Environ 101:135–153. cross-country analysis. J Labour Manage Dev 3:1–19. 384–396. 30. Malmberg B, Tegenu B (2006) Population Pressure and Dy- 53. El-Bushra J (2000) Rethinking gender and development 6. Boserup E (1981) Population and Technological Change namics of Household Livelihoods in an Ethiopian Village—An practice for the twenty-first century. Gend Dev 8:55–62. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago). Elaboration of the Boserup-Chayanovian Framework (För- 54. Jackson C (2002) Disciplinary Gender? World Dev 30:497–509. 7. Hayami Y, Ruttan V (1985) Agricultural Development: An In- fattaren samt Kulturgeografiska Institutionen, Stockholm). 55. Lind A (2003) Feminist post-development thought: “Women stitutional Perspective (John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore). 31. Wood EC, Tappan GG, Hadj A (2004) Understanding drivers in development” and the gendered paradoxes of survival in 8. Krausmann F, Schandl H, Sieferle RP (2008) Socio- of agricultural land use change in south-central Senegal. J Bolivia. Women’sStudQ31:227–246. ecological regime transitions in Austria and the United Arid Environ 59:565–582. 56. Patel R, Parmentler MJC (2005) The persistence of traditional Kingdom. Ecol Econ 65:187–201. 32. Zaal F, Oostendorp RH (2002) Explaining a miracle: In- gender roles in the information technology sector: A study of fe- 9. Boserup E (1975) The impact of population growth on ag- tensification and the transition towards sustainable small- male engineers in India. Inform Tech Int Dev. 2:29–46. ricultural output. Q J Econ 89:257–276. scale agriculture in dryland Machakos and Kitui districts, 57. Singh S (2006) Deconstructing ‘gender and development’ for 10. Brookfield HC (1972) Intensification and disintensification in Kenya. World Dev 30:1271–1287. ‘identities of women.’. Int J Soc Welf 16:100–109. Pacific agriculture: A theoretical approach. Pac Viewp 13:30–48. 33. Abizaid C, Coomes OT (2004) Land use and forest fallow 58. Aikman S, Unterhalter E, eds (2005) In Beyond Access: 11. Brookfield HC (2001) Intensification and alternative approaches to dynamics in seasonal dry tropical forests of the southern Transforming Policy and Practice for Gender Equality in agricultural change. Asia Pac Viewp 42:181–192. Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico. Land Use Policy 21:71–84. Education (Oxfam GB, Oxford), pp 1–35. 12. Dorsey B (1999) Agricultural intensification, diversifica- 34. Börjeson L (2007) Boserup backwards? Agricultural in- 59. Vazquez Garcia V (2001) Taking gender in account: Women tion, and commercial production among smallholder coffee tensification as its own driving force in the Mbulu high- and sustainable development projects in rural Mexico. growers in central Kenya. Econ Geogr 75:178–195. lands, Tanzania. Geogr Ann B 89:249–267. Women’s Stud Q 29:85–98. 13. Netting R (1993) Smallholders, Householders: Farm Families 35. Coomes OT, Grimard F, Burt GL (2000) Tropical forests and shifting 60. Bannon I, Correia MC, eds (2003) The Other Half of Gender: and the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable Agriculture cultivation: Secondary forest fallow dynamics among traditional Men’sIssuesinDevelopment(The International Bank for Re- (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA). famers of the Peruvian Amazon. Ecol Econ 32:109–124. construction and Development/The World Bank, Washington). 14. Turner BL II, Brush SB, eds (1987) Comparative Farming 36. Turner BL II, Hyden G, Kates RW (1987) Population Growth 61. Martínez Peinado J, Cairó Céspedes G (2004) Gender and Systems (Guilford, New York). and Agricultural Change in Africa (University Press of Flor- regional inequality in human development: The case of 15. Binswanger H, Pingali P (1988) Technological priorities for ida, Gainesville). Spain. Fem Econ 10:37–64. farming in sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Res Obs 3:81–98. 37. Kabubo-Mariara J (2007) Land conservation and tenure security 62. Forsyth N, Korzeniewicz RP, Durrant V (2000) 16. Pingali P, Bigot Y, Binswanger HB (1987) Agricultural Mecha- in Kenya: Boserup’s hypothesis revisited. Ecol Econ 64:25–35. Gender inequalities and : A longitudi- nization and the Evolution of Farming Systems in Sub-Saharan 38. Keys E, McConnell WJ (2005) Global change and the in- nal evaluation. Econ Dev Cult Change 48:573–617. Africa (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore). tensification of agriculture. Glob Environ Change 15:320–337. 63. Hannum E (2005) Market transition, educational disparities, 17. Tiffen M, Mortimore M (1992) Environment, population 39. Murton J (1999) Population growth and in Ma- and family strategies in rural China: New evidence on gender growth and productivity in Kenya: A case study of Macha- chakos, Kenya. Geogr J 165:37–46. stratification and development. Demography 42:275–299. kos District. Dev Policy Rev 10:359–387. 40. Shriar AJ (2001) The dynamics of agricultural intensification 64. Matthews R, Nee V (2000) Gender inequality and eco- 18. Tiffen M, Mortimore M (1994) Malthus controverted: The and resource conservation in the buffer zone of the Maya nomic growth in rural China. Soc Sci Res 29:606–632. role of capital and technology in growth and environment Biosphere Reserve, Petén, Guatemala. Hum Ecol 29:27–48. 65. Becker SO, Cinnirella F, Woessmann L (2009) The trade-off recovery in Kenya. World Dev 22:997–1010. 41. Stone GD, Dowman CE (1999) Non-Boserupian ecology between fertility and education: Evidence from before the 19. Angelsen A (1999) Agricultural expansion and deforestation: and agricultural risk: Ethnic politics and land control in demographic transition. J Econ Growth 15:177–204. Modeling the impact of population, Markey forces and the arid southwest. Am Anthropol 101:113–128. 66. Caldwell JC (1980) Mass education as a determinant of the property rights. JDevEcon58:185–218. 42. Pascual U, Barbier EB (2006) Deprived land-use in- timing of fertility decline. Popul Dev Rev 6:225–255. 20. Carr DL (2004) Proximate population factors and de- tensification in shifting cultivation: The population pressure 67. Basu AM (2002) Why does education lead to lower fertility? forestation in tropical agricultural frontiers. Popul Environ hypothesis revisited. Agric Econ 34:155–165. A critical review of some of the possibilities. World Dev 30: 25:585–612. 43. Place F, Otsuka K (2000) Population pressure, land tenure and 1779–1790. 21. Morrison KD (1996) Typological schemes and agricultural tree resource management in Uganda. Land Econ 76:233–251. 68. Obyejekwe CJ (2004) Economic globalization and the free change: Beyond Boserup in precolonial South India. Curr 44. Tachibana TT, Nguyen M, Otskuka K (2010) Agricultural market ethos: A gender perspective. Nebula 1:26–31. Anthropol 37:583–608. intensification versus extensification: A case study of de- 69. Silvey RM (2001) Migration under crisis; household safety 22. Lambin EF, Rounsevell MDA, Geist HJ (2000) Are agricul- forestation in the northern-hill region of Vietnam. J Environ nets in Indonesia’s economic collapse. Geoforum 32:33–45. tural land-use models able to predict land use intensity? Econ Manage 41:44–69. 70. Parpart JL (1993) Who is the ‘other’?: A postmodern femi- Agric Ecosyst Environ 82:321–331. 45. Ananda J, Herath G (2003) Soil erosion in developing nist critique of women and development theory and prac- 23. Stone GD (2001) Theory of the square chicken: Advances in countries: A social economic appraisal. J Environ Econ tice. Dev Change 24:439–464. agriculturalintensification theory. Asia Pac Viewp42:163–180. Manage 68:343–353. 71. Chithtalath S (2006) Community development projects 24. Turner BL II, Ali AM (1996) Induced intensification: Agri- 46. Gray LC, Kevane M (2001) Evolving tenure rights and agri- and the status of ethnic minority women in the Moksuk- cultural change in Bangladesh with implications for Mal- cultural intensification in southwester Burkina Faso. World Tafa area, Bokeo province, Laos. Community Dev J 42: thus and Boserup. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:14984–14991. Dev 29:573–587. 299–316. 25. Winfrey W, Darity W, Jr (1997) Increasing returns and in- 47. Reenberg A (2001) Agricultural land use patter dynamics in 72. Boserup E (1996) Development theory: An analytical tensification: A reprise on ester Boserup’s model of agri- the Sudan-Sahel—toward an event-driven framework. Land framework and selected applications. Popul Dev Rev 22: cultural growth. Metroeconomica 48:60–80. Use Policy 18:309–319. 505–515.

Turner and Fischer-Kowalski PNAS | December 21, 2010 | vol. 107 | no. 51 | 21965 Downloaded by guest on September 26, 2021