May 2

Learning for today was centered around a case study that took an intense look at a development project that was undertaken in Zambia to essentially change the primary crop of production in a village from maize to a more drought-resistant crop called Sorghum. We essentially broke down an entire market system and the development process that the project wanted to undertake.

One of the things that came up this time, that came up with a similar case study during JF day at conference, was what happened before and after the market went through a cycle. so in this case the development agency created a micro-market in their target region, giving a large number of farmers processing plants, machines, and seeds to get set on their product. there were a variety of other incentives as well. it didnt specify where these seeds were bought, or where the equipment was produced. after the first year the aid company left, leaving the market it had created to run itself. essentially the aid process had to have created a sustainable market cycle, where farmers create output, sell it in a market, and re-invest their funds into their projects and livelihood or potentially find other investment sources.

what i was most centered on personally were the after-shocks of this however, and the potential for unintended consequences.

although it was not a particular issue in this case in the time-scale at which we viewed it, a possible repercussion exists at the market level.

imagine there are two villages, each producing around the same quality and quantity of grain, and selling it to a common market. if an aid company came in and heavily invested development into one of these two villages, its quality and quantity would skyrocket above that of the other village, meaning it would be forced out of the market and village B would no longer have a market for its product: the people would lose their livelihoods in order to increase the livelihoods of their neighbours in the next village over.

similar processes could occur at the individual level. say for instance one farmer had a wonderful return on his crop, whereas other farmers did poorly because of a lack of experience. this single farmer would gain a larger share of the profit, increase in social class in the community, etc.

in either case, "development" has in fact contributed to economic disparity, and created a worse situation. similarly, there are ways around this; in the village case, government regulation limiting where a market can gain its resources (buying no more than 60% of its market from a single source for instance). likewise, a development agency might yield better long term results by making promotion of social responsbility a part of its project, so that if a farmer became more successful than his neighbours, rather than using his money to buy their land, they might invest in a school or agricultural training. effectively, im interested in knowing what sorts of macro effects micro actions can have. this is obviously difficult to ascertain, but would be indefinitely valuable.

I had other thoughts, but its 2 in the freakin morning. night!