Bertoli, Sandra - Young, Frank - Agricultural Innovation and Social Structure in Puno, Peru

International Journals
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN PUNO, PERU

Author(s): Sandra C. Bertoli and Frank W. Young
Source: International Review of Modern Sociology, Vol. 5, No. 1 (SPRING, 1975), pp. 18-30
Published by: International Journals
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41420543
Accessed: 10-09-2017 14:23 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41420543?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
International Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
International Review of Modern Sociology
This content downloaded from 146.83.108.177 on Sun, 10 Sep 2017 14:23:53 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE
IN PUNO, PERU*
Sandra G. Bertoli
Catawba College
and
Frank W. Young
Cornell University
This study of the 94 districts of the department of Puno in southern Peru intr
duces a shortcut measure of agricultural innovation based on informant respons
to a set of questions about the adoption , by at least one farmer in the district ,
farm practices. These responses form a satisfactory Guttman scale ranging from
the primitive foot plow to the use of guano for fertilizer . It is first shown th
altitude sets limits on the practice of agriculture given present technology. T
structural context of district-level agricultural innovation is then described by mea
of a factor analysis of 17 variables. A subsequent regression analysis uses thre
represéntative variables , institutional differentiation of the district capital distanc
to the capital city , and proximity to a large lake to predict agricultural innova
tion , resulting in an R2 of 42. This result is compared to similar studies and
linked to a theoretical frame of i eference that stresses the role of differentiate
centers in stimulating agriculture.
in a less developed country like Peru.

Research Research
in the Unitedinonthe
farmUnited States
States practice has has emphasized
emphasized adoption Family farms are quite small and their
individual-level determinants, such production is not individually signifi-
as local versus cosmopolitan outlook, or cant. Moreover, the characteristics of
else characteristics of the faim, such individual farmers are secondary to struc-
as its size and level of capitalization. tural factors such as the development
This approach reflects the importance of market towns, the presence of roads
of the family farm in the United States and other infrastructure, and competition
as well as the prevailing social-psycholo- from the hacienda system.
gical bias on the part of the researchers. Thus, research on agricultural innova-
Also, factors that operate at the com- tion in less developed countries would
munity and regional levels may not be more profitable if it dealt with the
have been important in the United characteristics of farms as aggregates
States. However, conditions are different within larger units such as communities
or districts, and if it aimed at isolating
♦The data for this paper was collected in 1968 the important structural factors that
and 1969-70 as part of Sertoli's doctoral research
and was supported by the Doherty Foundation and determine such aggregate characteristics.
Cornell University's Latin American Studies An analysis of agricultural development
Program. The Macrosocial Accounting for Deve-
loping Countries Project, financed by NSF Grant that derives from these two starting
No. GS28991, contributed to the data analysis points would be more useful to decision-
and write-up. We are indebted to Caroline Hicks
and Linda Redmond for assistance in data and makers, as well as reducing the cost of
manuscript management. research. This paper illustrates such an
18
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE 19
approach and reports results

socialbased on gave equally high
participation
the 94 districts of the Department of
correlations. Further, the independent
Puno in southern Peru. variables were highly in ter correla ted and
Coughenour did not disentangle them.
The Basic Questions
Qadir (1966) contributed to this question
The research on what is variously by his study of about 600 farmers in
called system or structural effects on 24 Philippine barrios. He found that
agricultural innovation is heterogeneous the relationship between such standard
and uneven. There are, for instance, a predictors as education, modern orienta-
number of studies that make plausible tion, etc. and adoption is reduced when
the idea that group -level variables have the level of adoption for the barrio is
effects on the average level of farm controlled. Thus, the general "progressive'
practices. Duncan and Kreitlow (1954) nature of the barrio makes an independent
studied 19 pairs of rural neighborhoodsdifference. Similarly Saxena found for
matched on such factors a,s area, distance communities in both Nigeria and India,
from city or village, type of farming, "that both individual a.nd system vari-
density of population, etc. a.nd foundables are equally effective in predicting
that the culturally heterogeneous neigh- an individual's innova tiveness." (1971 :35).
borhoods had adopted a greater number More recently Sandhu and Allen (1974)
of improved farm practices than had showed, in a study of farmers in 93
homogeneous (with respect to national Punjabi villages, that system charac-
and/or religious origin) neighborhoods. teristics such as peer emulation, organiz-
Van den Ban (1960) came to a similar ational help and agency contact (all
conclusion on the basis of a comparisonmeasured for each farmer) were stronger
of two areas. However, he stressed the predictors of farm modernization than
social isolation of the low adoption individual factors such as age, education
township rather than its cultural homo-
or landholding size.
geneity. Coughenour (1964) studied 12By and large, the research literature
Kentucky localities over time and foundis not very clear on the third question
that each had a typical rate of diffusion,
that needs to be a.sked: If structural
a fact that is consistent with the hypothesis
factors have an independent effect, then
that group-level influences are operative.
what precisely is it about the system
In addition, Coughenour cited a numberthat makes the difference? The answer
of other studies that had reported broad
suggested by early research is "cultural"
regional differences in areas. In parti-
differences, but that label begs the
cular, Griliches (1957) found regional
question in most respects. Also, the con-
differences with respect to adoptioncept
of tends not to be cross-culturally
hybrid corn. applicable, except in the general sense of
Thus, structural effects are plausible, "some kind of cultural difference". Factors
but that does not answer the obvious like "isolation", "communication integ-
next question of whether they operate
ration" or peer emulation" are much
independently of individual and farm-
more satisfactory, and replication research
level factors. For example, Coughenour
Ь badly needed. However, the studies
(1964) found high correlations between
that have identified such factors have
a measure of integration of communica-
rarely attempted to compare competing
tion structure and the average rate of
structural factois. On this point, the
reseaich
diffusion for five different practices, but of Fliegel, Roy, Sen and Kivlin
factors like median education and median (1968: 103) is a distinct advance because
20 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF MODERN SOCIOLOGY
they use partial correlation techniques

noteworthy in view of the great care given
to "winnow" the significant to deriving a general and composite
independent
variables operating in a sample
index ofof 108tivtness, as described
innova
below.
Indian villages. They systematically com-
pare more than 100 independent Thus, what research there is that bears
variables,
and conclude that on the question of the nature of the struc-
"the four factors that are of major tural determinants is unsatisfactory be-
importance m explaining differences cause it lacks a conceptual basis. Turn-
among villages of agricultural prac- ing, then, to the more purely theoretical
tices are village leaders' contact literature, one finds a fairly clear position
with change agents, the secular ori- that stresses the effect of, first, urban
entation of the village leaders, change industrial centers, and second, center-
agents' use of impersonal techniques periphery relations, in stimulating agri-
in disseminating information - espe- culture. The starting point for the fir.t
cially the demonstration - and the theme i? Schultz' basis statement (1951)
electrification of the village." in which he claims a greater effi-
This study of Indian villages, impressive ciency of factor and product markets in
as it is, raises still a fourth question re- well developed urban-industeial areas. In
garding structural determinants : Are they particular, he noted the improved flow
distinct in some conceptual or functionalof capital to agricultural areas and, in
sense, or are they simply components return, the migration of labor out of agri-
of a broader, but unspecified pattern? culture. Thus, one result is increased
For example, the four factors that Fliegelper capita farm income.
et al. isolate are clearly proximate deter- A somewhat similar hypothesis can be
minants of innovation and some of them derived from central place theory which,
are intimately involved in tne adoption it may be noted in passing, was influenced
process. Fliegel et al. worried over this by vonThunen's work on the spatial organ-
possibility with respect to electrification, ization of agriculture, as was Schultz'
which they concede is an integral part hypothesis (See Hayami and Ruttan 197 1 :
of the modern agriculture, especially34). As extended by Johnson (1970) it
where pumping irrigation water it> vital.claims that central places, that is, service
The same question seems to apply to thecenters of varying levels have a benign
other independent variables. But even
effect on their hinterlands not only by the
if the variables are taken as independentservices they provide, but also by virtue
of the dependent variable, they may stillof the fact that the innovations diffuse
overlap among themselves. Surely elec- down the urban hierarchy and out to the
trification is part of a broader pattern hinterland. As argued by Berry and Rao
of community modernization, and the(1968) for example, the'trickle down"
attributes of leaders that were significant
process of innovation diffusion will even-
suggest the presence of a more generaltually upgrade the urban hinterlands,
leadership contact factor. Fliegel et al.unless structural barriers limit the process.
do not report the intercorrelations of Hayami and Ruttan have criticized
their independent variables, nor do theySchultz' position on the grounds that the
subject them to empirical reduction tech-overpopulation of urban centers in many
niques such as factor analysis. They less-developed countries render them in-
offer no conceptual analyiss that might capable of absorbing migration from
help to decide whether broader patterns agricultural areas (1971 : 36). By the
operate. This omission is particularly same token, the other factor and product
markets may be inefficient inis not

an aover-
matter of central services extend-
populated city. The criticisming tc consumers
could also in the hinterland. On
be extended to the process of the contrary, it is a relationship between
innovation
and its spread, because thatsystem
process is
and subsystem, and operates at a
blunted by overextended urban facilities.
level beyond that of the aggregate demand
in the hinterland. The initial theoreti-
This criticism based on overpopulation
may be met by arguing that it iscal statement
not sheer was made by Shils (1961)
population that constitutes urban and develop-
has been elaborated in Young and
ment, but rather the elaboration and Young (1973) where it was ahown to
coordination of institutions. To some differ from the central place concept.
degree, the central place framework The re- addition of the structural dimen-
cognizes this fact with its stress onsionretail
of centrality to the older urbanization-
trade and related services, but a still differentiation hypothesis opens the door
broader position has been expressed byto considering a range of other structural
Young and Young (1973) in their argu-influences on agriculture. For exam-
ment that institutional differentiation is
ple, the structural rigidity of a district
really a systemic pattern, involving insti-
as defined by social distance between the
elite and the workers may be negatively
tutions from all sectors : religious, politi-
cal, social and of course economic. In associated with agricultural innovation,
other words, it is not simply a matter ofwhereas some sort of solidarity pattern
deficient markets, nor of the diffusion may
of be positively related. Some of these
new techniques, but rather the fact that possibilities have been explored by
institutionally complex centers processOpio-Odongo
a (1974), but the present
wide variety of information that benefitspaper deals only with differentiation
farmers, everything from fortune tellers and centrality.
to fence post makers. Thus a measure of
A Shortcut Measure of Agricultural
institutional differentiation should predict
Innovation
agricultural innovation positively.
The second component of this line ofThe standard approach to the study of
agricultural innovation is to ask farmers
theory stresses the center-periphery axis.
This concept is superficially associated
whether or not they have adopted one or
with the distance between a given agri-more items in a list of recommended prac-
cultural area and an urban center. But
tices and to construct a measure of degree
of acceptance on the basis of these res-
center-periphery relationships are much
more than this. The new thing about
ponses. Most studies obtain much more
this conception of "centrality" is its focus
information than simply the presence or
on the relationship between a localityabsence of a given practice, but that is
and the national or state government. the basis of most indices of agricultural
Is the district of special interest toinnovation.
the The conventional approach
government becuse of its resources orconcentrates
the on the farmer and his farm
operation
type of economic activity practiced there ? as the units of analysis, and
assumes that the practices recommended
Has a given locality been favored by some
by agricultural scientists constitutes an
institution that only the state government
can provide ? Or is there some other
adequate universe of innovations. Thus,
indication of special importance tothe
thestandard measures do not deal with
"collective innovations", such as com-
system, such as a railroad station, a power
plant, or perhaps even a monument of
munity grain storage facilities or the
some sort ? This conception of centrality
appearance of an experiment station ex-
Table 1 indivi-
cept insofar as farmers may make : Farm Practices Scale for Non-
dual use of such facilities. Hacienda Agriculture in 71 Districts of Puno ,
A more relevant objection to the farm Peru , 1970
practices approach, at least as applied
in less developed countries, is the Scale Percent
step Item discriminated Errors
cost and difficulty of research. The
conventional approach requires a sample
1 Foot plow (chaquitaclla)
survey, and at best, it cannot cover a and/or barnyard ma-
wide territory, such as a whole province. nure used (haciendas
excluded) . . 96 2
Recently, however Fliegel, et al. (1968)
have successfully employed a variant 2 At least one farmer uses
oxen-drawn wooden
of the farm practices approach. Using vil- plow with a metal
lages leaders as informants instead of point . . . . 62 И
a sample of individual fai mei s, they asked 3 Buys seed especially fo
for estimates of the proportion of farmers sowing . . . . 52 7
who had bought improved seed, who 4 Uses pesticides on the
used particular implements, etc. Similar plants . . . : 46 8
questions were asked of the leadership 5 Uses chemical fertilizer 42 8
group, so that some of their items took
6 Disinfects the seeds . . 39 11
the form of "six or more leaders used
pesticides." On the basis of such items, 7 Plows with a tractor . . 28 8
they were able to construct a 17-step 8 Disinfects the soil . . 20 3

Guttmzn scale that served quite ade-
9 Uses guano from the
quately as a measure of village-level islands for fertilizer . . 13 2
agricultural innovation.
The method used in this research is Coefficient of scalability =.63
N=71
similar to that of Fliegel, et al. However,
only one informant was interviewed, and i¿i possible to find one district where all
instead of asking what proportion of the the farmers operate at step 1, and another
farmers in the district used a particular where all but one farmer operates at the
practice, they were asked simply whether lowest level, but he has all nine practices
anyone used it. The presence-absence shown in the scale. Are not the two
responses were used to construct the districts basically alike, and if so, why
Guttman scale shown in Table 1. The should one receive a score of 1 , and the
items begin with the most primitive farmother 9 ? In answer, we note that it is
tools used by farmers (outside the hacien-
quite unlikely that a single farmer would
das) and move up to more sophisticated account for steps 2-9. In this are a there
equipment. The scale discriminates the
were almost always other farmers who
variations in non-hacienda agricultural
were functioning at intermediate levels.
practices used in 7 1 out of a total of 94
But even if the extreme example did exist,
we would claim that the difference in the
districts where agriculture was practiced.
Districts engaged primarily in mining orscores is justified because the basic pur-
cattle raising and herding are excluded pose of the interviewing technique is to
find the upper limits of innovation as
from the analysis as are the districts where
the large commercial centers of the regionrealized by even one farmer. Just as a
are located. single example of a new wheat variety is
It may be objected that this technique
significant because it proves that a parti-
leads to. in valid measurement because it cular possibility can be realized, so too it is
important to discover the uppergreatest limits area,

of 74.6 percent was being ubed
innovation given current conditions as natural
and pasture. Only 11.9 percent
the admitted environmental constraints. of the land was dedicated to agricultural
A third point can be made better at the cultivation and the major part of it was
end of the paper, but wc will state it here. fallow.
As will be shown, a limited set of vari- The principal crops are barley, quinua,
ables explains 42 percent of the variance potatoes and many varieties of related
of this particular dependent variable. If tubers such as ocas and ollucos. Garden
the scale was invalid, in the sense of vegetables are also produced and consumed
assigning inappropriate scores to dis- in small scale where the climate permits.
tricts, would not the prediction be re- All of these products are destined almost
duced? Indeed, it probably is reduced exclusively for local consumption. Tro-
somewhat by measurement error, but the pi tal fruits and coffee are cultivated
strength of the results is such that we can in the lowlands.
be sure that the measure is operating Land tenure patterns in Puno are still
validly at least most of the time. dominated by the hacienda/munifundio
complex. There exist about 94,000 hold-
The Physical and Social Context of
ings of les? than five hectares which to-
Farming
gether account for about 115,000 hectares
The department of Puno is situated in of land. That is, almost 80 percent of
the southeastern region of Peru on thethe holdings in the department have only
border of Bolivia and includes the Peruv- about 3.2 percent of the total area. On
ian potion of Lake Titicaca. The largest the other hand, only 270 properties of
part of the department is the Andeanmore than 2,500 hectares together own
highlands, although there is also a tro- more than 2 million hectares, which is
pical lowland area included as part Gf theequivalent to saying that 0.2 percent of
Provinces of Sandia and Carabava. The the holdings account for 60 percent of
greatest part of the department is enclaved
the total land of the department.
on a flat plain between the eastern andThe disparity between the small land-
western ranges of the Andes. The cities
owner and the large hacendado is one of
and inhabitants are principally located
the most pressing problems of the depart-
on the shores of Lake Titicaca and ment. Land reform legislation was passed
on the altiplano. in 1962 under Belaunde which initiated
The 1961 census classified 81.8 per- the expropriation of property belonging to
cent of the population of Puno as the rural
church, the Beneficiencia and the land
of some unutilized haciendas. In 1969
population, that is, population not living
in the district capitals or other urbanunder the Velasco regime a more stringent
centers. Puno is one of the most rural law was passed and the process of expro-
departments in the country. priation of most all large holdings has been
For the period 1954-60 agriculture scheduled.
and As of the time of this study
livestock raising represented 71.2 percent
the process was still in the first stages and
of the economic activity of the depart-
many haciendas which were due for ex-
ment. The income from this sector re- propriation had been surveyed but few
had actually been turned over to new
presents 63.3 percent of the total product
of the department. peasant owners organized into coopera-
The 1961 agricultural census shows that
tives.
3.3 percent of the department was culti- In the Andean region, altitude has an
vated, 8.6 percent lay fallow and the
obvious effect on farming and must be
taken into consideration at the outset. being close to the lake, 95 perc
Table 2 shows the disti ibution by alti- farms with step 3 (buying ¿eed e
tude of all the districts of Puno as well for sowing) and above. This co
as those where significant agriculture to 64 percent of the districts th
exists. Most of the districts are in the the altiplano but distant from t
altiplano, which is quite high to begin However, the emphasis in this r
with, but in the Andes it is still inter- is on the social rather than the
mediate with respect to other districts in
ecology of farming. Accordingly
analyzed a wide range of str
the province. Table 2 shows, however,
variables constructed from data colleted
that while 56 of the 65 altiplano districts
have some agriculture, less than half in of
the course of field work, during 1969-
70, either from interviews with district
the 16 highlands districts have agriculture.
A smaller reduction is apparent forinformants
the or from documentary sources.
jungle areas. Thus, altitude has a clear- This empirical and exploratory strategy
cut effect on the presence of agriculture is followed up by a specific selection of
in Puno, at least given present farming variables on a more theoretical basis.
techniques. The 17 variables that were included in
the factor analysis are as follows :
Table 2 : Distribution by Altitude of All 1. Population of the district capital.
Puno Districts , and of Significantly Agricul- These values range from 30 to 24463,
tural Puno Districts
with a mean of 1410.
2. Institutional differentiation . The pre-
Districts With
cise items as well as the scale characteris-
Altitude Level All Districts Significant
Agriculture* tics of this 32 step, 57 item Guttman scale
are shown in Table 3. The scale is
treated as an interval measure and scored
Highlands
in terms of items. The mean is 21.5.
(4001 m. and up) 16 6
Altiplano Table 3 . General Differentiation Scale for
(3501-4000 m.) ..65 56
94 Districts in Puno y Peru , 1970
Selva
(3500 m. & lower) 13 9
Scale Percent
JV=94 N==71 step Item discriminated Errors
•Defined as having one or more

1 of the items .. 100 0
Governor
making up the Agricultural Innovations Scale.
Municipal Council . . 0
Public Plaza . . 0
Store . . . . 0
Within the altiplano region,A there is a. . . .
street 0
second physical criterion : proximity to
Listen to radio . . 2
Justice of the peace . . 4
Lake Titicaca. As subsequent analysis. . . . 3
Mason
will demonstrate, the districts that are
Cemetery . . 4
Church . . . . 6
close to the lake have the densest popula-
tion and a significantly more 2 Complete
developedprimary
so- school 97 5
cial structure, but it is nonetheless reason-
3 Postal service . . 93 3
able to suppose that the soils, water, and
4 Chauffer . . . . 88 14
climate near the lake are superior to those
at a greater distance from5it. Thus, it is . . 85 7
Carpenter
not surprising to find that6of the
Barber20 alti-
.. .. 77 11
plano agricultural districts classified as
Scale Percent 3. Official services sca

step Item discriminated Errors 13 item Guttman acale co
7 Drinking water .. 70 13 lowing items: postal

8 Tailor .. .. 64 11 Civil post, telegraph off
(posta sanitaria, posta
9 Telegraph Office . . 59 14
agricultural extension
10 Parish .. .. 53 13
school system, voter r
1 1 Public health technician
(sanitario) . . 46 17 complete secondary sc
12 Secondary school . . 42 14 scription office, civil j
cultural development b
1 3 Agricultural extension
office . . . . 39 10 education inspector, an
14 Resident priest . . 36 12 This scale overlaps with
15 Electric light .. 30 15 introducing redundanc
16 Barbershop .. 28 8 another component o
The coefficient of scala
17 National secondary
school (Colegio Nac- mean is 4.29.
tional) . . 26 6 4. Scale of communications and trans-
18 Banking firm .. 24 4 portation. This 13-step Guttman scale
19 Auto mechanic .. 18 5
has the following items : people listen
20 Metal mechanic for to radio road connection to exter-
windows and doors .... 16 6
Stadium . . . . 5 ior, postal service, interprovincial truck
21 Auto mechanics shop 14 4 service, some people read Lima news-
22 Doctor . . . . 13 6 papers, telegraph office, interprovincial
Hotel .. .. .. 3 bus service, interprovincial collective taxis,
Sanitation worker (baja
regular train service, telephoneservice,
policia) . . . . . . 3
23 Public library . . 12 6
radio transmitter and/or printing press
24 Theatre . . . . 1 1 4
and airport. The coefficient of scalabi
lity is .84 and the mean is 5.84.
25 Paved street .. 10 1
Pharmacy . . 2 5. Scale of social and cultural organiza-
tions. Fifteen items as follows : festival
26 Inspection of the Minis-
try of Education . . 9 2 of the Patron Saint, veterans associations,
27 Restaurant . . 8 4 sport? team that plays other districts,
28 Civil Judge (Juez catechists,
de district
le associations formed by
Instancia) . . 7 4 migrants now living in other centers, local
Notary Public . . . . 2
Daily Market . . . . 1 peasant unions, resident priest, Social
Agricultural Develop Club, Teachers Club, Lions Club, trade
ment Bank . . . . 2
29 Social Benevolence
association (butchers, etc.), professional
Organization (Sociedad association (lawyers, etc.), religious bro-
de Beneficiencia) . . 5 3 therhoods and Rotary Club. The co-
30 Clothing store . . 3 3 efficient of Scalability is .66 and the mean
Printing Press . . . . 1
Dentist . . . . . . 2 is 4.95.
31 Teacher training school 2 2 6. CORPUMO Investments in the district ,

Cinema . . . . . . 1
1963-67. The value used in the analyses
Daily newspaper pub-
lished . . . . . . 1 is in thousands of soles, a nd is transformed
Hairdresser . . . . 1
by using the log to the base 10. The
32 Insurance agency . . 1 0 actual investments range from 0 to 3,781,-
University . . 1 0
789 with a mean of 2,019,960. The Cor-
poration
Coefficient of scalability of Development
=.66 and Social and
Economic Promotion of Puno is the de-
by informants of the general level of acti-
partment development program which vity
has in the market.
been functioning since 1963. GORPUNO 12. The number of centers with 100 or
handles most of the development funds more people in the district , 1961. The
that come to the department as a whole range is 1-142, with a mean of 19.
and administers those for a great variety 13. Languages spoken {coded 1 if Quechua ,
of projects, such as irrigation, road build-
and 2 if Aymara). The few large cities
ing and construction of schools or health
where both languages were spoken were
centers. automatically dropped from the statistical
analysis. The proportion of districts
7. The number of officially registered
cooperatives in the district . The values
where Aymara is spoken is 22.7 percent.
range from 0 to 7 with a mean of 0.36. 14. Proximity to the lake . Districts
The value used in the analysis is trans-
were classified as 0 or 1 with respect to
formed by using the log to the base 10.their location in the lakeside plateau.
In the whole department, there areTwenty 18 six percent of the districts were
agricultural production, eight savings classified
and as near the lake.
credit, seven service (some of which deal 15. Presence of an agricultural extension
office : Thirty-seven percent of the dis-
with agriculture) and one each of housing
and consumer cooperatives. The num-
tricts had such an office and most of these
were
ber of districts with no official co-ops is near the lake.
76. 16. Distance to the provincial capital
8. Total number of state employees viain road connections. This variable ranges
from
the district according to the 1961 Census . 0 (district is coterminous with that
This figure ranges from 0 to 1806 with containing the provincial capital) to
a mean of 79. The analysis values were 152 kilometers, with a mean of 44. There
transformed by using the log to base are 10. nine provincial capitals.
This figure includes both blue and white 17. Distance to department capital cities.
collar workers - people who are em- Although Puno is the official capital city,
Juliaca is actually larger and operates
ployed by the post office, schools, agri-
cultural extension office, health workers
in many ways as the capital of the depart-
and road construction crews (other thanment. The variable ranges from 0 to
locally employed manual labor) and 322 kilometers, with a mean of 106
others on the federal payroll. to the closest of the two cities.
9. Number of capital road connections. Table 4 shows the results of a varimax
The range is 0 to 5 with a mean of 2. 1 7.
rotated factor analysis of the 1 7 variables.
The variable is a simple count of the
The analysis produced three significant
number of roads leading out of the district
factors that explained 68 percent of the
capital, coded from the departmental total variance. The three factors have
been given rough labels : Urbanization-
map issued by the Ministerio de Caminos.
10. District Population , 1961. This
Differentiation, Lakeside development,
variable ranges from 593 to 41,040 with
and Distance to the capitals. An arbitrary
a mean of 7,711. cutting point for "high" loadings was
11. Size of periodic market held in set
the at .47 so as to place every vari-
district capital. The values range from
able in one of the factors. With this
0 (no market) to 4, (the original market
criterion, 1 1 of the variables load on the
in the largest city, Juliaca) with a mean
first factor. The clustering of the two
of 1.38. This variable is a rating, based
measures of population as well as market
size and road connections with the several
on observations or in some cases reports
Table 4 - Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix of Structural and Ecological M

Districts of PunOy Peru
Factors
I II III
Name
Urbanization- Lakeside Distance

Differentiation Development to Capi
1. Population of district capital .. .82 .01 - .19

2. Differentiation scale . . . . .88 .33 - .07
3. Services scale . . . . .79 .34 .08
4. Transportation scale .. .. .71 .22 - .10

5. Organization scale .. .. .78 .12 - .07
6. Investments . . . . .63 .22 .00
7. Go-ops .. .. .. .70 .15 -.13
8. State employees . . . . .77 .38 - .06

9. Roads .... .. .. .71 .03 -.02
10. District population . . . . .63 .68 - .12

1 1 . Market size . . . . .47 .49 .00
12. Centers . . . . . . .32 -83 -.05
13. Languages .. .. .01 .83 .16

14. Lakeside .. .. .. *08 .83 -.22
15. Extension office .. .. .39 .60 - .23
16. Distance to provincial capitals .. - .28 - .05 .82
17. Distance to Puno and Juliaca .. .07 - .10 .92
Percent of total variance explained .. 46.5 11.7 9.5
differentiation scales is typical, hinterland in and

contrasttheir
to the urban cen-
association with investments, cooperatives
ters.
and a high proportion of The third employees

state factor is based on the two
in not unexpected. distance variables, which are associated
The second factor is named Lakeside because the two major cities, Juliaca and
Puno, are near the lake, and most of the
development ori the basis of the associa-
districts of Puno are packed into this
tion of lakeside proximity with extension
central area. Thus, the nine provincial
offices, large markets, and many centers
of 100 people or more. This area also capitals are closer to the two major cities.
has a high concentration of Aymara Additionally the two large cities are also
speakers. Not surprisingly, population
provincial capitals, introducing an ele-
of the district capital does not load onment
this of redundancy.
The distance factor reflects the fact that
second factor, suggesting that we are deal-
ing here with the development ofdistrict the size near the lake is smaller and
thus there are more of them in this core distance to the departmental capital
region. Thu?, the districts in the high-cities. The differentiation scale is crucial
lands and in the selva are most clearly because it best reflects what the theory
distinguished by this third factor. Within claims is important in an urban center from
the core region, the variables divide with the point of view of agricultural develop-
respect to whether they apply to the urban ment. That is, it is the diversity of ins-
centers or the hinterland of the districts. titutions of all types, and not simply the
The urban centers have the institutional economic institutions, that provide sup-
development and the state bureaucracy,port for progressive agriculture.
while the hinterlands benefit from the agri- The second theoretically derived con-
cultural services. However, given the
cept is centrality, which can be measured
in this context by the distance to the two
density of the population, it is not surpris-
largest cities. Proximity to these places
ing that there is some overlap. This inter-
pretation throws a different light on themeans participation in the "core region"
meaning of proximity to the lake. While with all that that implies. Some will
physical factors may still be operating, object at this point that distance is much
this particular variable is embedded in more realistically interpreted as an eco-
a very definite social pattern. Thus, its
nomic factor, reflecting differential access
interpretation is ambiguous, as is fre-to the markets. The economic perspec-
tive would go on to stress the importance
quently the case with aspects of the physi-
cal environment. of the market size and the availability of
A standard strategy in the analysis ofcredit and expertise in the urban centers.
The fact is that the measures that are
structural patterns is to select variables
available do not permit a differential test
repiesentative of each factor and to use
these in a regression analysis is an at-
between a narrowly economic inter-
pretation and the more broadly social
tempt to predict the dependent variable,
farm practice adoption. Such a strategy
perspective that has guided this research.
has the weakness that it can be quiteEither theoretical position is consistent
a theoretical, and in those cases when the
with the emphasis on macro-level factors
factor structure is muddled, it often leads
that is the principal object of thL paper.
to non-results. The opposite strategy, Lacking a basis for distinguishing between
the economic and structural perspectives
involving a few variables selected on the
we can only say that the higher level of
basis of strong theory, has the alternative
weakness, even when the variables turn abstraction that is characteristic of struc-
out to be signficant predictors, that they
tural theory facilities a more comprehen-
support only a rather narrow interpre- sive interpretation of the wide range
tation. They do not usually provide of a available variables. Presumably the
basis for the richer analysis of patterneconomic interpretation would dispense
that is possible when a factor analysis with
is many of the variables in the factor
available. analysis as irrelevant to the interpretation.
The happiest strategy is, of course, a Table 5 shows the results of a multiple
regression analysis of the scale of agri-
combination of factor analysis and theore-
tically selected variables. This is onlycultural practices using as predictors the
three variables, distance to cap;tal cities,
possible when the two strategies coincide,
as is approximately the case here. On thedifferentiation, and lakeside proximity.
The analysis is confined to the 71 dis-
basis of the theoretical interpretation al-
ready presented, the variables of choicetricts with significant agriculture, as pre-
would be institutional differentiation and viously defined. Table 5 shows that the
Table 5 - Regression Analysis of District Level Agricultural Inn
Standardized
XT . , t Partial Partial Standard F и Values л/ i „
Vanable XT . , t Regression Regression Error of F и Va
Coefficient Coefficient (b) (b)
Distance to Puno or Juliaca .. -.29 -.01 .00 9.42*

Institutional Differentiation .. .32 .09 .03 10.14*
Proximity to Lake Titicaca .. .36 1.95 .56 12.11*
Multiple R=.67
R2=.44
R2 (adjusted) =.42
F (67., 3) = 17.82*
*= Significant at the .05 level
two theoretically derived predictors innovation.

are They also suggest a rather
statistically significant, even whendifferent
proxi- policy position as compared with
most research on agricultural innovation
mity to the lake, which reflects ecological
advantage, is controlled. All three that stresses the need for more education,
variables account for 42 percent of the training in achievement motivation, the
variance. reduction of fatalism, or, alternatively,
of somehow acuiring a farm and more
Discussion and Implications
capital. Such policy directives make
These results show that structural di- little sense in less developed countries, and
mensions of intermediate social systems, even if they did, they would be far too
expensive. Rather, the structural pers-
in this case Peruvian districts, are signi-
pective puts the emphasis on much broader
ficant predictors of the level of agricultural
dimensions.
innovation. They also support the pro- These are no less difficult to
change. For example, it is not easy to
posed interpretation, which turns on the
increase the level of structural differentia-
role of differentiated centers and centrality
tion of towns. Urban growth of this
the latter defined in center-periphery
type is not spontaneous, and common
terms. These findings are not definitive,
of course, because no farm or individual-
observation indicates that few cities change
level variables were included and no their position in the urban hierarchy. On
the other hand, some expansion of the
attempt was made to defend this interpre-
tation against, for example, a more hierarchy, particularly at the middle
narrowly economic framework that wouldlevels, can probably be accomplished by
accept the results but in tei prêt themjudicious investment in selected "growth
differently. poles". Such a shift should increase
Nonetheless, the findings that have been agricultural innovation across the board.
presented bear on the problem of research- The distance from a given district to
ing and understanding agi icul turai in- the departmental capital would seem
novation in less developed countries. to be intractable, but of course improve-
They can be seen as a workable starting ments in the transportation system do
point for a broader consideration of theeffectively reduce that distance and often
structural determinants of agricultural change the relationship to the center that
Pliegel, F. C., P. Roy, L. K. Sen and J. E. Kivlin

is the underlying structural determinant.
1968 Agricultural
However, the concept of centrality as it Innovations in Indian Vil-
lages. Hyderabad, India: National Insti-
has been interpreted here would put the
tute of Community Development.
main emphasis on stiengthening the
Griliches, Z.
links between the central and local 1957 Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the
Economics of Technological Change.
governments, increasing, in a way, the
total integration of the nation. SuchEconometrica
a XXV (October): 501-522.
Hayami, U. and V. W. Ruttan
general structural change is again not
1971 Agricultural Development: An Inter-
easy to come by, particularly in poornational Perspective. Baltimore: The
countries where ruling oligarchies are often
Johns Hopkins Press.
more intent on excluding variousJohnson,
regions E. A. J.
from the national life. 1970 The Organization of Space in Deve-
loping Countries. Cambridge, Mass.:
In thinking of policy shifts and the
Harvard University Press.
attendant structural changes, it Opio-Odongo,
is a mis- J. M. A.
take to asume that the central govern-
1974 Agricultural Productivity in Uganda:
ment has аП the power. On the contrary, A Social Organizational Perspective. Un-
published M. S. Thesis, Dept. of Rural
the countervailing power of particular
Sociology, Cornell University.
regions and particular urban centers is a
Qadir, S. A.
well-known phenomenon. Some centers
1966 Adoption of Technological Change in
are able to mobilize and achieve an incre- the Rural Philippines: An Analysis of
mental shift in their centrality or in their Compositional Effects. Ph.D. Disserta-
level of differentiation. This source of tion Department of Rural Sociology,
Cornell University.
social change has not been explored Sandhu,
in H. S. and D. F. Allen
this paper, but it is an important aspect1974 The Village Influence on Punjabi Farm
of the national life, and operates as an Modernization. American Journal of So-
extra-legal mechanism for achieving ciology 79 (January): 967-980.
policy shifts. It is in this direction Saxena, A. P.
that
1971 System Versus Individual Effects: A
future research of this type might well be
Cross-National Study of Agricultural In-
directed.
novations. International Review of So-
ciology 1 (March): 27-37.
References Schultz, T. W.
1951 A Framework for Land Economics -
Berry, B. J. L. and V. L. S. Prakasa Rao The Long View. Journal of Farm Eco-
1968 Urban-Rural Duality in the Regional nomics 33 (May): 204-215.
Structure of Andhra Pradesh: A Chal- Shils, E. A.
lenge to Regional Planning and Deve- 1961 Centre and Periphery. In Logic of Per-
lopment. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Ver- sonal Knowledge. Essays presented to
lag GMBH. Michael Polanyi. London: Routledge &
Goughenour, G. M. Kegan Paul.
1964 The Rate of Technological Diffusion
van den Ban, A. W.
Among Locality Groups. American 1960 Locality Group Differences in the Adop-
Journal of Sociology 69 (January) : tion of New Farm Practices. Rural
325-339.
Sociology 25 (September): 308-320.
Duncan, J. A. and B. W. Kreitlow Young, F. W. and R. G. Young
1954 Selected Cultural Characteristics and the 1973 Comparative Studies of Community
Acceptance of Educational Programs and Growth. Rural Sociology Monograph
Practices. Rural Sociology 19 (December) : No. 2. West Virginia University Pub-
349-357. lications.

Bertoli, Sandra - Young, Frank - Agricultural Innovation and Social Structure in Puno, Peru

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Bertoli, Sandra - Young, Frank - Agricultural Innovation and Social Structure in Puno, Peru

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bertoli, Sandra - Young, Frank - Agricultural Innovation and Social Structure in Puno, Peru

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journals

AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN PUNO, PERU

in a less developed country like Peru.

approach and reports results

they use partial correlation techniques

markets may be inefficient inis not

they were able to construct a 17-step 8 Disinfects the soil . . 20 3

important to discover the uppergreatest limits area,

•Defined as having one or more

Scale Percent 3. Official services sca

7 Drinking water .. 70 13 lowing items: postal

31 Teacher training school 2 2 6. CORPUMO Investments in the district ,

Table 4 - Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix of Structural and Ecological M

Urbanization- Lakeside Distance

1. Population of district capital .. .82 .01 - .19

3. Services scale . . . . .79 .34 .08

4. Transportation scale .. .. .71 .22 - .10

7. Go-ops .. .. .. .70 .15 -.13

8. State employees . . . . .77 .38 - .06

10. District population . . . . .63 .68 - .12

12. Centers . . . . . . .32 -83 -.05

13. Languages .. .. .01 .83 .16

15. Extension office .. .. .39 .60 - .23

16. Distance to provincial capitals .. - .28 - .05 .82

17. Distance to Puno and Juliaca .. .07 - .10 .92

Percent of total variance explained .. 46.5 11.7 9.5

differentiation scales is typical, hinterland in and

and a high proportion of The third employees

Table 5 - Regression Analysis of District Level Agricultural Inn

Distance to Puno or Juliaca .. -.29 -.01 .00 9.42*

Proximity to Lake Titicaca .. .36 1.95 .56 12.11*

two theoretically derived predictors innovation.

Pliegel, F. C., P. Roy, L. K. Sen and J. E. Kivlin

You might also like