Atelier Sciences Po
Final Report / Prepared by:
Mark WAYLAND, Yariv NORNBERG, Anna ROSSO
Date: 23/02/2006
RuralStruc Program - World Bank
Atelier Sciences Po
Final Report
Anna Cecilia ROSSO
Yariv NORNBERG
Mark WAYLAND
Executive Summary:
This report details the work carried out by the group of student-consultants in the context of the ‘Ateliers internationaux’ program at Sciences Po, Paris, 2005-06. The aim of the ‘atelier’ project was to contribute to the preliminary phase of the two year World Bank project called the ‘RuralStruc program’. The RuralStruc program is a World Bank Economic and Sector Work (ESW) implemented with the cooperation of French Aid. Its main purpose is to contribute to the analytical knowledge base on the implications of liberalization and economic integration for agriculture and rural development in Developing Countries (DCs), by focusing on structural change. In using a more disaggregated approach and in broadening the scope of research, this comparative research program based on 7 countries will fill a knowledge gap on the differences between and within countries in the liberalization process.
This report (with the accompanying CD-rom) brings together the totality of the work completed during the ‘atelier’ and thus it includes the project deliverables: 1) a bibliographical review on comparative methodologies; 2) the pre-identification of indicators for the comparative approach of the first phase of the program, and 3) a documentary work on the 4 sub-Saharan countries of the program - Senegal, Mali, Kenya, Madagascar. As well as delivering these three products, this report is meant to provide a ‘user-friendly’ document that will guide those who will continue the research of the RuralStruc program. The report is therefore structured to give a clear understanding of the approach taken to this project. There are five main sections to the report that relate to five key elements of the process undertaken: analysis, review, construction, compilation and conclusion.
In the introduction we present the ‘problématique’ that is at the centre of the RuralStruc program. Section two presents a review of the comparative methods literature to identify lessons that could be applied constructively in the RuralStruc methodology. Section three presents the framework (or ‘grille’) for the comparative analysis as well as the approach to the construction of the analytic framework. The fourth section compiles country information (qualitative and some quantitative) with the goal of providing a point of entry to the country studies. Section five is a general conclusion that ties together the work completed in the ‘atelier’ with the broader agenda of the RuralStruc program. Finally, the annexes corresponding to each of these sections are to be found.
Acknowledgements:
The present report finalizes a challenging endeavor we have undertaken together during the last three months. We wish to begin by taking the opportunity to thank both the institution – Sciences Po, Paris and our client – The World Bank, for offering us such a stimulating learning experience.
Specials thanks go to our devoted tutor, Prof. Jean-Jacques Gabas, who initiated this partnership and guided our efforts. He also brought the input of three valuable “personnes de ressource” – Mr. Jean Coussy, Mr. Antonin Vergez and Mr. Bakary Traore – all provided significant contributions and their unique perspectives.
Special thanks also to our client representative, Mr. Bruno Losch, who brought a stimulating intellectualengagement. In addition, we appreciated his efforts to meet us in Paris, travelling from abroad five times.
We appreciate also the work of several other individuals:
Ms. Sara Minard and Mr. Marc Levy in running the methodological classes. Their general guidance gave us a good grasp of skills required to successfully complete consultancy projects.
Mr. Ambrosio Nsingui-Barros and Ms. Cathy Benard, who coordinated the implementation of the atelier program at Sciences Po.
Ms. Barbara Genevaz, Ms. Valérie Chevalier and their team at the World Bank office in Paris, who welcomed us and provided the necessary working environment in order to make the most of our time.
Although a demanding subject to work on given its breath of scope and international implications, we feel privileged to have had the opportunity to make a modest contribution to a valuable project.
Contents:
Executive Summary:
Acknowledgements:
Contents:
General Introduction
Context of the project - from the ToRs:
Objectives:
Duties and Accountabilities:
The problematique explained further:
I) Review of Comparative Methodologies
Introduction to the review of comparative methods:
Annotated bibliography:
Comparative methodologies – general bibliography:
Comparative methodologies – case studies:
Comparative methodologies – traps and mistakes to be avoided:
Comparative methodologies – “Path-dependant” approach:
Experts in social science comparative analysis/Personnes de ressources:
II) Analysis Matrix ('grille d’analyse')
Introduction to matrix:
From the Concept Note to a ‘grille d’analyse’
The logic of our approach
Limits of the ‘grille’
III) Country studies research
Introduction to country studies research:
Overview of the research process
Country 1 – Kenya
Introduction
Kenya – overview
Press review
Reference list and sources consulted
Country 2 – Madagascar
Introduction
Madagascar – overview
General reference list:
Meeting with Madagascar resource person:
Country 3 – Mali
Introduction
Mali - Overview
Questions for country specialists:
Review of the Mali press:
General Bibliography:
Examples of data found on the FAOStat :
Country 4 – Senegal
Introduction
Senegal – Overview
Question related to the problematique for the country:
General Bibliography:
Some data examples:
IV) General Conclusion:
Project Summary
The contribution in the context of the RuralStruc program
Auto-evaluation of the project
V) Annexes:
Annex 1: Terms of reference/Timeline/Atelier workplan
Annex 2: Grilles de lecture
Annex 3: Grille d’analyse
Annex 4: Powerpoint presentations
Annex 5: List of supplementary references
Annex 6: Project personnel contact details
General Introduction
Context of the project - from the ToRs:
The RuralStruc program is a World Bank Economic and Sector Work (ESW) implemented with the cooperation of French Aid. Its main purpose is to contribute to the analytical knowledge base on the implications of liberalization and economic integration for agriculture and rural development in Developing Countries (DCs), by focusing on structural change. In using a more disaggregated approach and in broadening the scope of research, this comparative research program based on 7 countries will fill a knowledge gap on the differences between and within countries in the liberalization process.
Objectives:
The objective of the internship is to participate in the preparation phase of the program, which was approved in October 2005, and to contribute to the background work needed for preparation of the launching workshop of the program in March 2006.
Duties and Accountabilities:
The interns will contribute to the preparation of the ESW, including:
- a bibliographical review on comparative methodologies;
- documentary work on the 4 Sub-Saharan countries of the program (Senegal, Mali, Kenya, Madagascar);
- pre-identification of indicators for the comparative approach of the first phase of the program.
The deliverable will be a synthesis in English including: a review on comparative methodologies, a framework of indicators for the comparative analysis, and a first data compilation on the 4 selected countries using these indicators. A CD-rom containing all project documents and resources accompanies this report.
The problematique explained further:
The RuralStruc programme identifies and seeks to address the complex interaction of issues surrounding the impact of processes of liberalisation on the agricultural sectors of developing countries, particularly those developing countries in which a large proportion of the population is involved in agricultural production. Globalising processes increase the interdependency of actors, and so questions of poverty in DCs is a global concern. The fact that the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and the Doha Development Round of Trade Negotiations, are on the global agenda at this time is testament to this interdependency. It is unclear however, whether the MDGs and the Doha Round are converging in terms of there outcomes and ultimate impact on poverty.
The ‘evolutionary model’ which broadly summarised describes a progression from agriculture to industry may not be appropriate to apply universally. Today’s realities plus the specific and unique circumstances of the target countries of the RuralStruc program may demand a different model.
Quoting the Concept Note:
“The central hypothesis is that the restructuring of the global food system and the confrontation between different types of agriculture implies an increasing segmentation, not only of farm structures, but also of marketing, transformation and distribution structures….The structural change itself is not new. What is new is its amplitude, rapidity, and characteristics due to globalization, and the global economic, social, and political challenges that come from the size of the population concerned.
Key questions regarding this hypothesis include: what are the current identified and expected impacts? What are the main drivers for integration or exclusion? What room for manoeuvre is there with regards to the specific assets of the different countries, whilst in transition? What are the consequences for policy orientation?
The second hypothesis is that the process of change in farm structures, the search for solutions by rural households to sustain their livelihoods and the diverse opportunities presented by economic integration lead to new rural household configurations… This new configuration pushes us to “rethink the rural” and to develop a new perspective on rural economies (de Ferrandi et al. 2005).
In what manner do these evolutions respond to the problem of “transition” and will they be sustainable? What are the consequences of these new realities for the conception of support programs and the definition of new extension systems? And how do they impact on the reformulation of agricultural and rural policies?”
And so, it is in the context of these two key hypotheses that examine the segmentation of the food system and the changing role of agriculture that we undertook our task to contribute to the preparatory phase of the program – the establishment o fthe methodological framework.
I) Review of Comparative Methodologies
Introduction to the review of comparative methods:
Comparative methodologies drawn from the field of Comparative Politics, where they are most commonly used within the different social sciences, may find application in this RuralStruc program.
Strategies of comparative research in political science assume that there are observable political events, actors, interests, structures, and outcomes about which social scientists can make reasoned, informed and intelligent analytical statements.
Variously called "positivism" or "behaviouralism", these approaches concentrate on observable social behaviour and events at the individual, group, national or international level, and they assume that explanations of that behaviour are susceptible to empirical testing. Thus grounded in the position that the ultimate objective of comparative research exists for the most part independent of and prior to their investigations. Moreover, the world of social-political science consists of important empirical puzzles to which social scientists apply a set of theories and methods in order to provide meaningful explanation and thus achieve understanding.
It is often accepted that comparative research in political science centers on four main objectives, all of which co-exist and are mutually reinforcing in any systematic comparative study, but some of which receive more emphasis, depending on the aspirations of the researcher:
-Contextual description allows political scientist to know what other countries are like;
-Classification makes the world of politics less complex, effectively providing the researcher with “data containers” into which empirical evidence is organized;
-The hypothesis-testing function of comparison allows the elimination of rival explanations about particular events, actors, structures, etc. in an effort to help build more general theories;
-Finally, the comparison of countries and the generalizations that results from comparison allow prediction about a) likely outcomes in other countries or b) outcomes in the future, given the presence of certain antecedent factors.
The levels of analysis in political science, like in economics, are divided between the micro and the macro, the individual level and the system level. Micro-political analysis examines the political activity of individuals, such as respondents in a mass survey, elite members of a political party or government, or activist in a protest movement. Macro-political analysis focuses on groups of individuals, structures of power, social classes, economic processes, and the interaction of nation states. As in other social sciences, there are those who believe social-political phenomena can be explained by focusing on micro-level processes, and there are those who believe that social-political phenomena can be explained by a focus on macro-level processes.
The comparative politics literature is rich with examples of these different levels of analysis. Samuel Popkin in The Rational Peasant, (University of California Press, 1979)[1] argues that revolutionary movements are best understood by focusing on the preferences and actions of individual peasants (a micro-level analysis). Support for this assertion comes from his intense study of peasant activity in Vietnam. In contrast to Popkin, Jeffrey Paige in Agrarian Revolution (The Free Press, 1975) demonstrates that revolutions are most likely in countries with a particular structural combination of owners and cultivators. This macro-level analysis is carried out through comparing many countries at once, and then verifying the findings in the three countries of Vietnam, Angola and Peru. Gregory Luebbert in Liberalism, Fascism, or Social Democracy (Oxford University Press, 1991) claims that the types of regime that emerged in inter-war Europe had nothing to do with “leadership and meaningful choice”, but were determined structurally, by mass material interests, social classes, and political parties (a macro-level analysis). Finally, in The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes (John Hopkins University Press, 1978), Alfred Stepan and Juan Linz find the middle ground in accounting for the 1964 breakdown of democracy in Brazil, where they suggest that macro-political conditions at the time of the breakdown certainly limited, but did not determine the actions of individual leaders.
Among the many different comparative methods developed over the years, which ones
could qualify the most to be used for the RuralStruc cross-country analysis? At this stage, we are not yet able to recommend a specific method. The RuralStruc concept note points to an innovative “path-dependent” approach presented well in James Mahoney’s article Path-Dependent Explanations of Regime Change: Central America in Comparative Perspective (Studies in Comparative International Development, Spring 2001). This macro-historical study demonstrates that major outcomes cannot always be explained in terms of short-term processes or unique predictable equilibria. Rather, trajectories of development are sometimes punctuated by critical periods in which relatively small or contingent events (potentially both at a micro and macro levels) have a profound influence on subsequent events and patterns of change. When such path-dependent processes are present, Mahoney argues that adequate explanation will require the identification of key historical processes that set cases on particular trajectories of development, even if these processes rest in the distant past.
Another work in the concept note, which also refers to a “path-dependent approach, is the introductory chapter of Paul Pierson’s “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics” (The American Political Science Review, 2000). Pierson makes a case for the fundamental importance of temporal dimensions in political analyses. He details and nuances the increasingly cited but sometimes oversimplified notion that ‘time matters’ in politics.
In order to facilitate the work of those who will have to adopt and implement a specific methodology for the RuralStruc project, we decided to present the general leading references as an annotated bibliography list of approaches on the different strategies of comparative research, mainly taken from social-political sciences. This annotated bibliography in English and French is presented hereinafter and includes a list of books and articles about economical processes and policies. It is supplemented with a contact list of scholars expert in the specific use of these methodologies for research.
Annotated bibliography:
Comparative methodologies – general bibliography:
- Bertrand BADIE, Guy HERMET, 2001, Politique comparée - Coll. U, A. Colin [Bibliothèque Sciences Po: 320.3-BAD-2001, 1er étage] – Mr. Losch's recommendation
Cette ouvrage fait, dans sa première partie, le point des problèmes propres à la méthode comparative, dégage ensuite dans sa deuxième partie des axes de mise à l’épreuve de cette méthode dans le domaine de l’analyse du pouvoir politique et en troisième partie de l’analyse de l’expression politique. Ce livre plutôt manuel qu’essai fait un bilan critique des principaux acquis, à dessiner des axes de recherche, à proposer aussi un guide pour les nombreuses investigations qui restent encore à accomplir dans un domaine qui n’en finit pas d’être jeune. - Mattei DOGAN, Dominique PELASSY, 2nd edition 1990, How to compare nations: strategies in comparative politics, Chatam [Bibliothèque Sciences Po: 8°140.193, livre magasin]
This book, cited as a reference in many other ones, discusses strategies of comparison and explores some new perspectives in comparative research. The importance of the problems raised led the authors to renounce voluntarily to deal with methodological and technical issues, the exploration of which would require another book. Accordingly, the authors focus instead on the general strategy of comparative research. Not intending to make an inventory of all the accumulated knowledge on political parties, pressure groups, parliaments, bureaucracies and so on, their aim is to present a critical appraisal. - Todd LANDMAN, 2003, Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics – An Introduction, Routledge [Bibliothèque Sciences Po: 320.3-LAN-2003, 1er étage]
This introductory and simplified book is organized in three parts. Part I establishes the scientific justification for doing comparative politics, including why political scientists compare countries, how they compare countries and strategies for choosing countries and problems of comparison. Part II uses the comparative "architecture" established in Part I to address some dominant issues in comparative politics. Part III summarizes the main conclusions from Part II and looks forward to the challenges that the field will face in the foreseeable future.