University of Groningen
China's relationships with Africa re-appraised
Jiang, Bin
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2019
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Jiang, B. (2019). China's relationships with Africa re-appraised: the lense of domestic experiences in agricultural technology extension and its reflection in China's foreign policy towards Africa. University of Groningen.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
CHAPTER 2
1. Introduction
This chapter focuses on the three theories employed in this study, namely, neorealism, and value chain and farmer participation. This chapter combs the origination and development process of these theories, summarizing the debates and discussions of these theories by other scholars; also, with the discussion of the necessity (connections) of these three theories and this study; therefore, to formulate the theoretical framework of this study.
The intimate Sino-African relationship is heating up due to the fluent operation of the China-Africa Cooperation Forum. In December 2015, the tenth year of the forum, China announced its new China’s African Policy File (2015) to the world. This policy file mentions the promoting of bilateral exchanges and cooperation in the fields of agriculture, manufacturing, mining, finance, culture, education, tourism and justice in order to build a closer friendship between China and Africa, one characterized by reciprocity and mutual benefit. Neorealists believe that national interests are the determining factor for all nations within an anarchic international system.
This study analyses neorealist perspectives in order to answer the research question, ‘how are Chinese foreign policy goals reflected in Sino-African agricultural development cooperation, and why?’ Moreover, as China and most African countries are classified as belonging to the Global South and are not counted as power states in the international system in the 1950s, when they both got self-independence. With the cooperation of China and Africa both China and Africa are holding a core position in the international political system gradually. Therefore, this study questions whether power states actually always hold the core positions in the international system, taking the China-Africa relationship as a case in point.
In the Chinese development process, and especially in the past four decades, China’s economy has developed rapidly, drawing the attention of the world (Zhang, 2013). Given that agriculture is the primary industry of the Chinese economy (Li, Qi& Tang, 2011), this study explores what are the major elements that add value to the Chinese agricultural value chain? Therefore, this study employs the value chain perspective to examine and analyse Chinese agricultural development experiences, both domestically and in the Tanzanian case study. This study also uses the value chain perspective to search for both previous and potential value added factors in the Chinese and the Tanzanian cases.
The farmer participation approach has been a useful tool in rural development studies since the 1980s (Pearse and Stiefel, 1979). This study of agricultural development also adopted the farmer participation approach for its fieldwork. Moreover, farmer participation is a core element in agricultural activities and is therefore used in the analysis part of this study, as a perspective to test and comb the operational status of the Chinese and Tanzanian case studies.
2. Neorealism
This section will mainly focus on the theory of neorealism. It begins with a brief description of realism and neorealism in order to explain why this study chooses a neorealist perspective over realism. It will then present the main arguments of neorealism as posited by the founding father of the theory, Kenneth Waltz. This will be complemented by a review of previous debates on neorealism. Finally, it will explore the connection between neorealism and Sino-African collaboration.
2.1 Realism and neorealism
Considering Hans Morgenthau’s (1987) doctrine as representative, Realism developed into a mature theory that has long prevailed in the field of international relations. The premise of Morgenthau’s doctrine is that nation states are the main actors in an anarchic world system and realists believe that, in such a system, they can rely on one but themselves for security
Morgenthau (1987) suggests that there is no central authority to formulate and enforce laws in the international community. The sovereign countries that compose the international community all have the supreme power within their respective territories. They all tend to work as rational actors and their starting points are defined as the interests of power. The realistic goals that they carefully pursue are commensurate with their powers and capabilities.
Realists focus on nations and the conflicts that arise between them. They ignore the possibilities of international collaboration among nations, instead concentrating their research on national interests and national power (Qin, 2005).
Waltz developed the theory into neorealism or Structural realism in his book Theory of International Politics (1979). He retained the main content
of the Realpolitik, but investigated its means and purposes, and causes and consequences in international politics. The Theory of International Politics has been considered as the most influential book since the publication of
Politics among Nations by Hans Morgenthau, the master of political realism
(Qin, 1999). Indeed, neorealism has become the main tenet of international relations theory since the 1970s (Qin, 2005).
The purpose of international relations theory is to study the general behaviour of major international actors. In the long-term studies of the paradigm of realism, the main problem presented is regarding what elements have most influenced the international behavior of international relations actors (Viotti, Kauppi& Brooks, 2012). Waltz’s major contribution to this debate is that he treats international politics as a constructed and structural system, and he uses the hierarchy of this system to explain and analyse the behavior of and interaction between states. Moreover, unlike realism, neorealism admitted the possibilities of cooperation among nations (Burchill, 2001).
Given that realism ignores the possibilities of cooperation among nations, but neorealism admits that such possibilities exist, neorealism is a more appropriate approach for analysis in this study, which focuses on Sino-African agricultural collaboration.
2.2 Main arguments of neorealism
There are three main arguments of neorealism that are relevant to this study. Firstly, in the international political system, every nation state shares the characteristic of sovereign equality. That is to say, no country can command other countries to do anything, and no country must obey the arrangements of other countries. Therefore, international politics is considered no government politics and the international system are presented as being fragmented and anarchic (Waltz, 1979).
Secondly, every state is a sovereign political unit, and all states are equal. The functions of all states are, basically, similar, which means that a state must defend its own survival and security using its own power, i.e. it must pursue its national interests as far as possible (Waltz, 1986).
Thirdly, in this anarchic self-help system, the degree of national power determines a country’s status. In order to compete for power and security interests, nations act differently, depending on the state’s capacities. Hence,
in the anarchic international system, large countries have different powers to other countries, and it is the number of these large countries that determines the international structure (Waltz, 1990).
In summary, Waltz’s theory of neorealism argues that in the anarchic self-helping system, the allocation of inter-state capacity determines the international political structure; in turn, the international political structure affects a states’ behaviour (Qin, 1999). Neorealism not only provides a definition of the international political structure, but also creates a theory of international political systems and structures of state behaviour that explains the regularity of state behaviour from the level of system structure (Burchill, 2001). Moreover, Schroeder (1994:109) posits a framework for neorealism (Figure 2-1).
Figure 2-1: Framework of neorealism theory (Schroeder, 1994:109) Therefore, neorealism tries to concentrate the balance of power through self-help and by ensuring primacy of security, which is a condition of the structural anarchical states system (Schroeder, 1994). This study concludes that self-help should be considered as a core element for the whole framework of neorealism theory and that, from a neorealist perspective, self-interest is the key to the self-help process. This study will apply this perspective in the context of the China-Africa relationship, in particular in the analysis of Chinese foreign policies towards Africa.
2.3 Debates and discussions on neorealism
anarchic and it is inevitable that countries seek to conserve and increase their powers, a country’s main focus is not necessarily the pursuit of uninterruptible powers; that is to say, countries sometimes choose to negotiate rather than to wage war (Waltz, 1986). Cooperation can avoid costly conflict and is conducive to maintaining peace and solving economic problems. According to the theory of neorealism, power relations still work in the context of cooperation arrangements and more powerful countries take a larger share of the income resulting from international cooperation (Waltz, 1990).
Additionally, Waltz (1979) believes that it is the distribution of power structures and actors within the international system that is the focus of international relations analysis, rather than the behaviour of nations. This is because structure determines the behaviour of actors. Citing the reality of US-Soviet Cold War confrontation, Waltz makes comparative analyses of the bipolar and multipolar systems of balance of power. He argued that the bipolar balance of power system offered greater stability and security, because it involves two major powers with a vested interest in maintaining the system, because the system is what guarantees their existence.
However, the end of the bipolar system did not play out as Waltz envisaged, and herein lays the problem with neorealism: it ignores domestic political theory, and thus failed to explain the real reason that led to the unit level changes in the structural system (Qin, 1999). Waltz seeks to provide a scientific explanation for international politics, the so-called value-neutral performance; but, he could not avoid the use of the normative concepts and assumptions of classical realism in his theory (Qin, 2005).
Neorealism is a valuable theoretical paradigm; some of its basic ideas have been adopted by other schools of international relations theory, like neo-liberalism, the English school, etc. However, neorealism has shortcomings; not only has its research method been criticized for its narrow view and single angle, but also its basic assumptions are now being challenged in varying degrees (Baldwin, 1993).
In his book The Poverty of Neorealism’ (1984), Richard Ashley criticizes the utilitarianism nature of neorealism. In Waltz’s theory, states are characterized by instrumentalism, namely, a country regards another country as a tool for the realization of national interests. Hu (2003) indicates that the main objective of the rational action of neorealism is to secure national
interests and welfare. Therefore, the international order is the result of instrumental international relations.
On the other side, Ashley (1984) points out that in structuralism, changes happen within a framework, or structure, of fixed elements. Only the structure can influence these changes, but the structure itself is not influenced by those changes. However, Ashley posits that Waltz paid too much attention to the elements comprising the structure, and that this is contradictory to the structuralism character of neorealism. Gilpin (2011) claims that economic elements are more important than political elements in the international system; therefore, neorealism draws too much attention to the elements of political power, at the expense of other elements in the international system.
In sum, we can conclude that neorealism admits the possibilities of cooperation among nations, but still ignores the role of cooperation in international politics. That is to say, neorealism emphasizes inter-state conflicts and neglects the interests of their coordination and cooperation (Cox & Keohane, 1986). Secondly, neorealism ignores the roles of non-governmental organizations, multinational companies and individuals in international relations and, consequently, it fails to provide a full explanation of changes in the world (Ashley, 1984). Thirdly, neorealism emphasizes the role of power politics while ignoring international norms, international laws and acts of state (Ibid.). Fourthly, neorealism is unable to give comprehensive insights into the influences changes in the domestic social and economic structure have on the nature of the international system. Indeed, it separates international politics from domestic politics, and therefore cannot fully explain the root of a country's foreign policy (Pan, 2004). These criticisms and controversy regarding the theory of neorealism is valuable as it helps readers to use diverse perspectives to understand and develop international relations theory.
In the specific Sino-African context, especially in the globalization era, cooperation and mutual benefits are keys to the relationship (Zhang, 2013). Both China and Africa are increasingly involved in the South-South cooperative framework (Li. Qi& Tang, 2010). The next section will focus on whether neorealism can properly interpret the Sino-African cooperative relationship and, if it cannot, what can this study do to address this?
2.4 Neorealism and Sino-African cooperative relationship
In the context of Sino-Africa agricultural development cooperation, national security and survival are crucial to both Africa and China (Zhang, 2013). In the perspective of neorealism, nation states are the leading actors in international relations. The pursuit of national security is a catalyst for a nation to engage in international relations (Qin, 2005). Therefore, in Sino-Africa agricultural development cooperation, the end goal of national security is an ineluctable factor.
As is widely recognized, food safety is a major issue for most developing countries and an essential solution to this issue is agricultural development (Zhang, 2013). According to the FAO, there are three ways to measure a country’s level of food security: 1) the self-sufficiency rate for grain should be more than 95%; 2) the annual per capita stores of grain should be more than 400 kilogrammes; 3) grain reserves should reach 18% of a particular year’s grain consumption, with 14% being the alarm line (Li, Qi & Tang, 2010: 17).
According to these FAO criteria, in 2007, the Chinese self-sufficiency rate of grain was more than 95%; its annual per capita grain holdings were 379.6 kilograms; and its grain reserves were between 40% to 45%. Therefore, China is achieving food security according to FAO standards. In 2007, the annual per capita grain stores in African countries was 148.4 kilogrammes. Consequently, in that particular year, Africa needed to obtain 2,267 million tons of food from imports or food aid from other countries. Most African countries have a lower than 50% self-sufficiency rate of grain (Ibid.). Zhang (2013) points out that this situation is leading to serious food insecurity issues on the continent. In this context, in a fundamentally anarchic international atmosphere, both China and Africa still need to ensure their food safety according to the FAO (Li, Qi, Tang, 2010).
Alexander Wendt (1999) demonstrates that there are three main critiques of neorealism: that it cannot explain structure change, for instance the end of Cold War; the neorealism theory is insufficient, i.e. it is difficult to put forward a disprovable hypothesis; and neorealism cannot sufficiently explain several important minor events. Qin (1999) indicates that the complete abstract of countries will lead to countries losing national property; neorealism emphasizes the structure of the international system, but ignores its process.
Huang (2010) demonstrates that self-interest and altruism coexist in international relations and they also embody China-Africa agricultural cooperation. A large part of China’s agricultural assistance to African countries comes without any subsidiary political conditions. As a Ghanaian Foreign Minister once said, most African national leaders appreciate Chinese economic and technological assistance because there are no additional conditions (Li, 2009).
Furthermore, as China and most African countries belong to the Global South, the China-Africa relationship draws much attention within the international political system, which contradicts the neorealist view that powerful countries determine the international structure (Waltz, 1990). Likewise, Gilpin (2011) claims, in the era of globalization, economic elements are more important than political elements in the international system, and the model of mutual benefit, which is virtually ignored by neorealism, is increasingly popular. For instance, this study claims that in Sino-African development cooperation, both China and African get mutual economic and politic benefits, which will be specifically discussed in the following chapters.
Based on the above views, this study argues that neorealism can only partially explain the Sino-African agricultural development collaborative relationship. Therefore, this study will also apply the value chain approach in order to analyse the agricultural industries of both China and Africa. This will address the lack of attention in neorealism for economic elements.
3. Value chain perspective
As stated, in the globalization era, the economic elements are playing a more important role in foreign relationships within the international political system (Gilpin, 2011). This is ignored by neorealism theory and so this research will apply value chain perspective to fill this research gap. This section concentrates on the value chain and its core contents.
3.1 Value chain approach and pro-poor value chain development intervention
This first part of the illustration of the value chain perspective comprises three main aspects: the definition of the value chain approach in agriculture;
value chain development and pro-poor value chain development interventions; and the agricultural value chain approach.
1) Definition of value chain approach in agriculture
In 1985, Porter first presented the concept of value chain to the world in his book Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance. He defined the value chain as all the activities carried out for
competition in specific industries. Jeffrey F. Rayport and John J. Sviokla (1995) posited the virtual value chain concept; they argue that there are two worlds in any business: a world in which people can touch and see the resources, i.e. the physical world; and another world that is filled with information, i.e. the virtual world. They believe that information collection, organization, choice, synthesis and distribution, and enterprise can all create value.
Developing this line of thinking, Brown (1995) provides a concise explanation: the value chain is an instrument that can be used in a business to disaggregate it into strategically relevant movements. Zhong (2005) defines the value chain as a series of interrelated value-added activities, including product design, production, sales, service, and sub-sectors, such as research and development, creative design, the improvement of and technical training for production and processing technology, etc.
Subsequently, the value chain approach was introduced into the area of agricultural development; specifically, the pro-poor value chain approach. Riisgaard and Ponte (2011:1) present their answer to the question ‘what is a pro-poor value chain approach?’ as:
An approach to development which puts at the centre the interrelatedness of actors in the value chain who-separated by time and space-gradually add value to products and services as they pass from one link in the chain to the next. Pro-poor value chain initiatives often try to overcome entry barriers for poor agricultural producers and providers of inputs and services.
Haggblade and Therault (2012) believe that value chains offer small farmers a valuable visual framework for the better understanding of input suppliers, processors, dealers and consumers. Value chains also provide analytical instruments for people living below the poverty line, and can help poor people recognize profitable income-earning opportunities in developing
rural areas. Haggblade and Therault demonstrate that value chains can provide opportunities for poverty reduction for poorer households.
Thus, the agricultural value chain can be defined as a chain comprising agricultural production, processing, packaging, transportation, and marketing, and the ultimate goal of a value chain is to meet consumers’ demands. In a specific agricultural project, the value chain should encompass all stakeholders’ opinions and needs, which, in turn, can help to add value.
In the Chinese agricultural development process, the government of the PRC realizes the importance of value chains and takes account of value chain perspectives in its agricultural policies. For instance, the 2013 CPC No. One Central Document presented a general plan on the strategy to construct a new, intensive, professional, organizational, social agricultural operating and management system, in the process upgrading the agricultural industrial chain and value chain (Liu, 2013). In the third plenary session of the 18th Central Committee Conference of CPC, the commitment to ‘speed up the new construction of agricultural operating and management system’ is an important measure to improve the urban and rural development mechanism system; the conference also committed to improving the agricultural industrial chain and value chain (He, 2014).
2) Value chain development and pro-poor value chain development interventions
In any business, the value chain is changeable. In the global era, Zhang, Vonderembse and Lim (2002) point out that rapid changes in technology and the expanding expectations of customers create a turbulent environment. In order to meet the needs of consumers; the value chain should stay flexible.
Riisgaard and Ponte (2011) define value chain development as a positive change that will prolong or to improve fruitful operations and lead to social benefits, such as economic development, poverty reduction, gender equity, better environmental performance, etc. The goal of value chain development is to invent an ever improving suitability between competencies and consumers (Walters and Lancaster, 2000). In order to develop a value chain, several improvement methods are needed and in an agricultural business, farmers’ needs commonly ignored by governments or companies (Riisgaard and Ponte, 2011). In this context, this study argues that
value chain development should start by taking farmers’ needs into consideration.
Any analysis of value chain development interventions first requires a definition of the term. Riisgaard and Ponte (2011) believe that value chain development interventions are a concerted effort to make value chain development into a specific category. Pastakia and Oza (2010) point out that value chain development intervention is an analysis of the main constraints in a value chain.
Folke, Riisgaard and Ponte (2010) think that most donor-supported value chain development programmes assume that the value chain development will have a positive influence on poverty reduction. Some approaches focus solely on the efficiency of the value chain and ignore the issue of poverty; other approaches emphasize efforts to achieve poverty reduction.
Humphrey and Navas-Aleman (2010) hold the view that if donors want projects to better target the poor people, then a number of methods must be considered when implementing value chain development interventions. For instance, implementers should focus on zones where poor people live, or on the sectors in which the poor tend to earn a living, and they should try to work with groups of vulnerable people or those living below the poverty line.
Pastakia and Oza (2010) define pro-poor value chain development interventions as those based on the market. They treat the whole value chain as a way to improve the livelihoods of the poor while creating value and, ultimately, to improve the total productivity and deliver quality products or services to consumers. MaLi (2006:19) provides a chart of the four basic elements of small-scale farmers’ participation in the value chain (see Figure 2-2). This chart makes clear that farmer participation is essential to a successful value chain development intervention.
The users of the pro-poor value chain approach always want to overcome entry barriers to the inputs and services for small farmers or poor agricultural producers (Riisgaard and Ponte, 2011). Moreover, many project managers believe their intervention will benefit small farmers and achieve poverty reduction. However, often, these development programmes have not taken farmers’ ideas or value into consideration. Roduner argues that if the
function of one actor in the value chain is strengthened, there may be competitive advantages for the entire system (Roduner, 2007).
Figure2-2: Elements of small and marginal farmers in value chain (KIT, Mali, IIRR, 2006:19)
In recent years, pro-poor value chain development interventions have been used by donors to African countries. Humphrey and Navas-Aleman (2010) indicate that donors who aim to achieve market-oriented growth and to reduce poverty are increasingly likely to use value chain interventions. However, their paper (ibid.) cites a number of problems that still need to be addressed: The donor literature however, shows an increasing awareness of the fact that, A) there is not enough evidence on poverty alleviation impacts from these interventions to claim that they are effective or efficient in helping the poor, and B) the poverty focus of value chain interventions is not clear (which of the poor are being targeted, what kind of poverty is being targeted and how).
This examination of the pathways from value chain interventions to poverty reduction will address four questions: a) What pathways to poverty
reduction are identified in different types of value chain interventions? b) To what extent, and how, do these interventions attempt to increase their poverty-reducing impact? c) What evidence is provided in the way of impact assessment to show whether the poverty-reduction goals have been achieved? d) How cost-effective are these intervention in terms of achieving poverty reduction?
A number of donors are likely to use the pro-poor value chain approach in their assistance to African countries, but they lack a focus on local farmers’ demands in terms of agricultural development. Hence, this study aims to improve the pro-poor value chain approach, and combine it with farmer participation in order to achieve better implementation of this particular value chain. That is to say, it aims to construct a farmer-centred value chain approach. Such a value chain approach should be a more inclusive version of the pro-poor value chain approach. It should concentrate ensuring the participation of the poor and/or small holder farmers in development projects; the goal of this method should be poverty reduction and agricultural development.
3) Agricultural value chain approach
In this study, the agricultural value chain approach is aimed at developing a more scientific and a more inclusive value chain, so as to maximize the value. The process of an agricultural value chain approach is described in Figure 2-3: first, analysis of agricultural value chain; second, the value chain intervention; third, value chain development in agriculture; the last stage is the implementation of the project.
In the first step, the analysis of agricultural value chain means identifying all the factors in the value chain, including agricultural production, processing, packaging, transportation, marketing and the demands of consumers. Additionally, in China and most African countries, a significant aspect is the farmers’ producing model and should be seriously considered in any analysis.
The second step is agricultural value chain interventions. In this step, the two major means are governmental macro control and market self-regulation. Governmental macro control, namely policy formulation and implementation in the agricultural value chain; market self-regulation is
mainly about market competition and self-elimination, which can also intervene in the agricultural value chain.
After the agricultural value chain interventions, the next step is agricultural value chain development. This step can be considered as a result of the interventions of the agricultural value chain, i.e. because of the interventions in the previous step, the elements in the agricultural value chain can be improved and adjusted to add value.
The final step, following proper improvements and adjustments, is to implement the project. During the last step, the core point is to take every element of an agricultural value chain into consideration. This will add value. In the small farmers’ model, and particularly in the production process, understanding farmers’ needs when producing agricultural products and understanding the advantage of production is of great importance. Farmer participation is a positive element for agricultural value chain development. In this study, the formulation of agricultural value chain approach is not just in theoretical level, but will also being applied in the following two case studies—Hunan case and Tanzanian case.
3.2 Discussion of the value chain approach in agricultural development
The discussion of the value chain approach in agricultural development is illustrated in this section through: 1) positive perspectives on the value chain approach in agricultural development; and 2) critiques of the value chain approach in agricultural development.
The value chain approach in agro-business has been implemented for several decades (Tu, 2010). Bammann (2007) demonstrates how the value chain concept has been a part of agricultural development projects and programmes since 1996. Moreover, the value chain approach has been tested in terms of improving the identification and formulation of agricultural projects, which proves its positive effects on agricultural and rural development.
Figure 2-3: The process of agricultural value chain approach
Haggblade and Therault (2012) argue that the value chain can provide a good opportunity for poor households to escape poverty reduction if it is used to analyse small farmers’ production activities. Additionally, Barrett, Bachke, and Bellemare (2012) claim that the modern agricultural value chain includes agreements’ systems, arrangements, contracts, and a link between farmers and the consumers of their food. The modernization of agricultural value chain is not only a result, but also a cause of economic development.
With these realizations about the importance of implementation of value chain approach in agricultural development programmes, other scholars have focused on the importance of proper analysis in order to successfully implement the agricultural value chain approach.
Folke, Riisgaard, and Ponte (2010) demonstrate that value chain interventions are a good means for improving agricultural value chain analysis. They define value chain interventions a way to create new value chains, which should be targeted domestically, regionally or internationally. In 2012, Thomas, Kolkma, Shrestha, et al. shift the focus to stakeholders in the agricultural value chain. They evaluated the stakeholders’ views and benefits in the agricultural value chain in order to improve it and
in order to find a better method of local agricultural development. The value chain approach can thus be considered as an important aspect of improved agricultural development. As agriculture develops, discussions on the value chain approach grow increasingly fierce.
In addition to the positive perspectives on the value chain approach in agricultural development, a number of critiques have also been presented. Bammann (2007) argues that while the value chain approach can help improve agricultural development, small-scale farmers’ participation is essential during the value chain analysis. He also claims that participatory value chain analysis is effective for increasing farmer incomes, employment opportunities and food security.
Tu (2010) points out that small holder farmer in the Chinese agricultural producing value chain hold a weak position. On the one hand, because of a lack of capital and technology, the quality of the products of small holder farmers is low, which hinders the selling of these goods. On the other hand, even though small farmers’ products are entering the terminal sells market, because of the asymmetric market forces in the Chinese agricultural value chain, small farmers are at a competitive disadvantage (Jiang, 2014).
All these critiques of the agricultural value chain approach share a focus on the issue of the position of small farmers. How to incorporate small farmers into the agricultural production value chain is an important problem that should be addressed by future research. In sum, the value chain approach in agricultural development is crucial, and the lack of participation of small farmers is a serious issue that must be resolved. For this reason, farmer participation is also examined in the theoretical part of this study.
4. Farmer participation perspective
The farmer participation perspective is an important aspect of the theoretical framework of this study. In this section, this perspective will be discussed by examining the development of: the farmer participation approach and the current discussions of farmer participation in agricultural development.
4.1 Farmer participation approach and its development
In the 1980s, the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development made participatory research one of its two important themes (Pearse and Stiefel, 1979). Farrington and Martin (1988) conclude that there are three
main purposes of participation: the involvement of communities in social research, community action for development, and community education for development. Lin (1998) indicates that the participation approach is widely used in the field of rural development, especially in the confirmation of projects, the designing process, the planning process, and the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of projects. Thus, farmer participation is a significant aspect of rural development.
The reasons to implement farmer participation have been put forward by a number of scholars. Vermillion and Sagardoy (1999) think that the focus needs to be on the question of who is best suited to implementing which management functions? Witcombe et al. (1996) demonstrate that farmer participation can identify the requirements of farmers in relation to crop improvements; this could lead governments or donors to provide more effective assistance. Wang, Xu, and Huang (2006), in their study of the construction of a Chinese irrigation system, suggest that farmer participation can inform every aspect of this process. Indeed, the implementation of farmer participation perspective is now a regular feature of rural development projects. Participatory methods are a bottom-up aspect of development studies.
The most popular farmer participation research tools are the Rapid Rural Appraisal (hereafter, RRA) and the Participatory Rural Appraisal (hereafter, PRA). The core principle of both the RRA and the PRA is respect for the diversity of a community. This means applying various tools and techniques to collect information that represents the diversity of a community (Freudenberger, 2011).
The RRA and PRA have been popular methods since the mid-1990s, and are generally implemented in the process of planning and evaluating agricultural programmes. They are considered effective tools for collecting information for rural development research due to their comprehensive consideration of the diversity of stakeholders in the community. Moreover, they are based on a no bias principle (Webber and Ison, 1995). Townsley (1996) points out that there are no obvious differences between an RRA and a PRA. This study mostly employed the PRA in its field investigations.
Chambers (1994) summarizes the PRA as a methods that makes it possible for local people to share, improve and analyse their understanding of life conditions, and subsequently to plan and act. Adebo (2000) concludes
that PRAs helps communities to define issues properly, rethink former failures and successes, incorporate local human resources and natural resources, access priorities and occasions, and prepare a scientific plan of action.
While PRAs have a number of benefits in agricultural development projects, there are still a number of problems that should be considered. Richards (1995) points out that the main issue that PRA or RRA face is to compound with action. Webber and Ison (1995) think that the mismatch of problems and the local situation by researchers has a significant influence on the outcomes of a PRA. Kapoor (2005) illustrates that PRA-led discussions are frequently initiated by the power relationships in the community and become a tool for the authority. These issues should be considered by scholars conducting future research.
4.2 Discussions of farmer participation in agricultural development
The discussions in this section will focus on the positive perspectives and the critiques of farmer participation in agricultural development.
The importance of farmer participation is being realized by many agricultural development researchers. Freeman (2001) describes measuring the extent of farmer participation as a way to apply effective agricultural technologies. Ye and Lu (2002) suggest that participation is often misunderstood and mistakenly seen as the same notion of presence. They think that participation should be treated as a good measure of development or the basis of empowerment, good governance, democracy, innovation and capacity building. In the area of rural development, farmer participation should occupy an important position. Du (2004) indicates that rural participatory management can improve China’s rural development and its agricultural economy. He believes that applying farmer participation to the agricultural development process will benefit the country’s agricultural policy making and results in more appropriate and effective solutions to current issues in the Chinese agricultural development process.
Farmer participation can improve the rural development research methods. Zuo, Qi, and Zhong (2003) think that research methods in rural development need to improve. Traditional research methods in the lab or at research stations should be transferred to on-farm research, i.e. Farming System Research, Adaptive Research, Participatory Action Research, etc.
Agricultural extension methods must be creative, for example, Participatory Extension, Farmer Field School and so on. Gao (2004) discusses the importance of farmer participation for technological innovation in agriculture.
As farmer participations, critiques of this approach have emerged. Some scholars think that the essence of farmer participation is positive, especially in rural development; however, there are significant problems in terms of its implementation in a wide range of development programmes.
Some scholars claim that farmer participation in research should be rethought. Kapoor (2005) demonstrates that when participation is collaborated with development programs, it is a surplus of institutional and organizational demands. Guo (2010) thinks that rural participatory appraisal is a good method in the rural development area, but, in some studies, researchers use a mechanized version of this method and do not make a connection with the actual situation of the investigated community. The particular use of ‘participatory’ working methods and philosophy, and the total omission of a community’s actual situation cannot produce good research. It ignores the more intricate traditional culture networks and simply applies the stamp of ‘participation’.
Also, Qi, Xu, and Shi (2013) point out that practitioner of participatory rural appraisal often defined participation as a kind of tool to collect information frequently, record images and analyze timely, which results in only superficial understanding of training manuals. The trend towards standardization violates the original intention of participatory rural appraisal and results in making mechanical decisions for political purposes. Hence, in Sino-African agricultural development cooperation programmes, farmer participation can be a positive influence and play a supporting role in the China-Africa agricultural development process. However, the community’s actual development situation should be connected to the farmer-centred perspective.
5. The relevance of neorealism, value chain and farmer participation in this study
As the contents above illustrate, the theoretical framework of this study consists of three theories: neorealism, value chain theory and farmer
participation. Figure 2-4 shows the main connections between the three theories and Sino-African agricultural cooperation.
Firstly, neorealism is used to analyse the motivation of Sino-African agricultural cooperation and China’s African policy. This study will compare the main ideas of neorealism and China’s foreign policies towards Africa, especially in agricultural field. On the other side, as the Sino-African relationship deepens and its influence on the international system grows, this study argues that neorealism’s view that larger states are determine the international political system and a nation’s power is bigger than human needs must be updated. Neorealism mainly focuses on political elements and national interests, but, in the globalization era, economic development and the mutual benefits of cooperation between states is increasingly important. Therefore, the value chain approach has been introduced in this study in order to concentrate more on the economic elements of the analysis of Sino-African agricultural development cooperation programmes.
Secondly, value chain approach and farmer participation approach are used to analyse Chinese domestic agricultural extension experiences and China’s experiences in African agricultural technology extension. The reasons for selecting these two approaches are: First, from a neorealist perspective, there is a lack of economic concern, and a tendency to focus on the political elements. The value chain approach is a comprehensive tool for examining the factors that link a specific economic field, and this study concentrates on the agricultural area of Sino-African development cooperation. Consequently, this study has chosen the value chain perspective to analyse the case studies in order to compensate for the lack of economic elements in neorealism. Second, the small holders’ model is typical to both Chinese and African agricultural development, and is used to get to know the real needs of local farmers. It enables their participation in the programmes initiated by the Chinese or African governments. Additionally, farmer participation is a crucial aspect of analysing the agricultural value chain.
This study employs the value chain and farmer participation perspectives in order to establish how Chinese experiences and lessons are reflected in the African continent within the framework of Sino-African collaboration programmes and in the search for a more inclusive method of Sino-African agricultural development.
Thirdly, the demonstration of the Chinese and African cases will also connect to China’s African policy. The case studies may, in fact, be a source of inspiration for these policies, and they are also a benchmark for whether previous policy goals have been achieved. I will utilize this theoretical framework in order to answer and test the research questions and hypotheses of this study.
Figure 2-4: Theoretical framework within this study
As Figure 2-4 illustrates, neorealism is useful for analysing the motivations behind China-Africa agricultural cooperation and China’s African policy, with agriculture a core sector. However, as previously stated, neorealism is not effective for analysing the economic development cooperation and mutual benefits of Sino-African collaboration. Hence, the value chain approach is used to analyse the case studies. In addition, the ubiquitous smallholder model is also used in analysis of the case studies. These case studies are the Chinese domestic agricultural extension
experiences and China-African agricultural demonstration centres. By applying value chain and farmer participation perspectives, this study is trying to fill the gap left by neorealism in this new era of globalization. Moreover, it aims to find a more inclusive method for future Sino-African agricultural development cooperation.
In the following chapters, all three theories or perspectives will be applied. First, Chapter 3 focuses on the demonstration and analysis of Chinese development policies for Africa by applying neorealist points of views. In the subsequent chapters, both value chain and farmer participation perspectives are applied to analyse Chinese domestic agricultural development and Sino-African agricultural cooperative programmes. Finally, in Chapters 7, all three theories are combined to provide a conclusion to the study and to justify the four research hypotheses presented in the first chapter.
