Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:23:30.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Failure of the ‘Progressive Farmer’ in Kenya's Million-Acre Settlement Scheme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2008

Christopher Leo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Conventional WisdomOne of the most widely accepted assumptions in the literature on rural development during the past two decades has been the belief that ‘favouring the progressive farmer’ is prudent policy. The safest way of investing rural development funds, it has been argued repeatedly, is to allocate them to those who have already succeeded in farming or business, or who have had relevant training or education. They are the people who are the most likely to achieve increased levels ofb production and income.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Modern African Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 1978 , pp. 619 - 638
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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

page 620 note 1 For a fuller account, see Leo, C. P., ‘The Political Economy of Land in Kenya: the case of the Million-Acre Settlement Scheme’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, 1977, chs. 2–3.Google Scholar

page 621 note 1 For a discussion of the reasons for the Million-Acre Scheme, see ibid. chs. 4–5.

page 622 note 1 In some of the later high-density schemes, deposits of up to Shs. 500/- were charged, and there is evidence to suggest that higher sums were demanded in some instances; cf. Nottidge, C.P.R. and Goldsack, J. R., ‘The Million-Acre Settlement Scheme, 1962–66’, Department of Settlement, Nairobi, 1967, pp. 33–4Google Scholar and Appendix I. Although some Kenyans who were not landless and unemployed were admitted to high-density settlement, it is clear that the vast majority were ‘non-progressive’ by any reckoning.

page 622 note 2 ‘Project for the Development and Settlement of Land in the Scheduled Areas’, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Nairobi, 1961, para. 78.

page 623 note 1 Department of Settlement, Annual Report, 1962–63 (Nairobi, 1963),Google Scholar mimeo.

page 623 note 2 Ruthenberg, Hans, African Agricultural Development Policy in Kenya, 1962–65 (Berlin, 1966), pp. 72–3.Google Scholar

page 623 note 3 Odingo, R. S., ‘Land Settlement in the Kenya Highlands’, in Sheffield, James R. (ed.), Education, Employment and Rural Development (Nairobi, 1967), p. 149.Google Scholar

page 624 note 1 ‘Loan Agreement between Colony and Protectorate of Kenya and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development’, 29 November 1961, Loan 303KE, articles 3, 5, and 6.

page 624 note 2 Director of Settlement's Planning Committee, Minutes of 18 and 19 September 1962; 3/116, Office of the President, Kenya National Archives (hereinafter K.N.A.), Nairobi.

page 624 note 3 Brown, Leslie, ‘Contrasts in High Density Schemes’, in Kenya Weekly News (Nairobi.), 23 07 1965, p. 8.Google Scholar

page 625 note 1 Mercer, A. M., ‘Ol'Kalou Salient: background to policies, with some notes on organisation and practical farming problems’, mimeo. 1966, p. 6;Google Scholar Office of the Nyandarua District Commissioner, Thomson's Falls.

page 625 note 2 Leo, op. cit. pp. 104–5.

page 625 note 3 Ruthenberg, op. cit. p. 68.

page 626 note 1 Minutes of 17 December 1962; 3/116, Office of the President, K.N.A.

page 626 note 2 Director of Settlement's Planning Committee, Minutes of 24 April 1963; ibid. It is fair to add that the Land Development and Settlement Board did not simply capitulate to all European demands; indeed, there were cases when its firmness was sufficient to incur the displeasure of the settler community. A fuller account of the policy and actual practice of land valuation may be found in Leo, op. cit. pp. 101–6, 137–41, and 188–9.

page 627 note 1 Nottidge and Goldsack, op. cit. p. 15.

page 627 note 2 The value of two acres of subsistence cultivation varies with the fertility of the soil and the actual crops grown. In the sample budgets reprinted in Nottidge and Goldsack, op. cit. the anticipated net annual income from two acres of maize ranged from Shs. 168/- (assuming a yield of eight bags per acre) to 510/- (assuming 12 bags). In these two cases, the highdensity settler's subsistence was worth 632/- and 390/- less, respectively, than the low-density settler's allotment of 800/-. If we subtract that difference from a high-density settler's 500/- annual target income, we find that he was earning a negligible income or none at all.

page 628 note 1 Minutes of a meeting of officials concerned with settlement in Nyandarua District, 19 July 1963, K.N.A. 4/98, Agriculture.

page 628 note 2 Ministry of Lands and Settlement, ‘Proposed Nyandarua Settlement Plan’, 4 September 1963, K.N.A. 4/98, Agriculture.

page 629 note 1 Brown, L. H., ‘Safari Report’, 23 05 1963,Google Scholar K.N.A. 4/98, Agriculture. Other, similar evidence is reported in Leo, op. cit. pp. 214–16.

page 629 note 2 Nottidge and Goldsack, op. cit. pp. 28–30.

page 630 note 1 Z. B. Shimechero, Special Commissioner, Squatters, to District Commissioner, Nyandarua, 10 September 1965, LAB 4/I/II, Thomson's Falls, Kenya.

page 632 note 1 Source: Statistics Division, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, An Economic Appraisal of the Settlement Schhmes, 1964/65–1967/68 (Nairobi, 1971), pp. 39–42.Google Scholar

page 633 note 1 Source: ibid. p. 45.

page 633 note 2 Source: ibid. p. 31.

page 634 note 1 Ibid. para. 4.32.

page 634 note 2 Haugwitz, Hans-Wilhelm von, Some Experiences with Smallholder Settlement in Kenya, 1963/64 to 1966/7 (Munich, 1972),Google Scholar Part E, Section v.

page 635 note 1 Sources include secondary and primary historical research; intensive interviews with 125 settlers in the Million-Acre Scheme, selected by random-sampling techniques; and scores of less-structured interviews, as well as casual conversations, with administrators and settlers throughout the Million-Acre Scheme. See Leo, op. cit.

page 636 note 1 The comparable figures for ‘non-progressive’ farmers in Ol'Kalou West high-density scheme were: outside commercial enterprise or investment, 1·5% paid employment, 7·6%; ownership of, or interest in, other land, 7·6%; absentee ownership, 2·6%; owner manages plot, but has other, full-time activity, 3·0%; owner manages plot, but has other, part-time activity, 4·6%. These figures exclude the 13·3 per Cent of high-density plot-holders who had white-collar backgrounds, and who were not, therefore, landless and unemployed as defined by the settlement authorities – or ‘non-progressive’ in the sense of this article. See Leo, op. cit. ch. 7.