Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-xrnlw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T05:03:25.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agriculture, Domestic Manufacturing, and Structural Transformation: Assessing Economic Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2014

John Cownie
John Cownie*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, The Federal City College, Washington, D.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The nations of Africa are today experiencing the cross-pressures characteristic of modern economic development. The choices of development strategies to focus these pressures constructively are critical, and no choices are more important than those which will determine the interactions between agricultural and manufacturing sectors.

Relationships between agriculture and industry have received wide attention in the literature of development economics. Generally the two sectors have been depicted as competitive for the scarce developmental resources available, with opinion then splitting over the relative emphasis to be placed on each at various stages of the development process. It will be argued here that three fundamental assumptions must be challenged if development strategies are to promote optimal economic growth. (1) The assumption that the fundamental nature of the agricultural-industrial relationship is competitive must be drastically modified. (2) Growth rates of aggregate output and output per capita can no longer be accepted as “the” indicators of developmental economic health. (3) Gross national (or domestic) product measurements must be rejected as providing the most relevant index of aggregate output. Only within a framework of reconstructed assumptions can the optimal relationship between agriculture and manufacturing be defined and achieved.

Structural transformation—“the process by which a predominantly agrarian economy evolves into a diversified industrial economy”—is generally recognized as an essential characteristic of economic development. Structural transformation encompasses many things. Agriculture's relative share in both output and employment declines, and increased specialization of economic functions within and between sectors greatly increases the interdependence of economic units.

Type
Research Article
Information
African Studies Review , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , April 1974 , pp. 123 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © African Studies Association 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES CITED

Cownie, John. Appendix in Thorbecke, Erik, ed. The Role of Agriculture in Economic Development. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1969.Google Scholar
Hagen, Everett E. The Economics of Development. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1968.Google Scholar
Healey, Derek T. “Development Policy: New Thinking About an Interpretation.” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. X, No. 3 (September 1972).Google Scholar
Johnston, Bruce F. and Cownie, John. “The Seed-Fertilizer Revolution and Labor Force Absorption.” American Econcmic Review, LIX, 4 (September 1969), 569–582.Google Scholar
Johnston, Bruce F. and Kilby, Peter. “Interrelations Between Agricultural and Industrial Growth.” Paper presented at the International Assoiation Conference on the Place of Agriculture in the Development of Underdeveloped Countries, Bad Godesberg, Germany, 1972.Google Scholar
Kindleberger, Charles P. Economic Development. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 1965.Google Scholar
McNamara, Robert S. Address to the Board of Governors of the World Bank Group, Washington, September 25, 1972.Google Scholar
Ohkawa, Kazushi and Johnston, Bruce F.. “The Transferability of the Japanese Pattern of Modernizing Traditional Agriculture.” In Thorbecke, Erik, ed. The Role of Agriculture in Economic Development. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1969.Google Scholar