Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:37:58.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reply to van Donge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2002

Stefano Ponte
Affiliation:
Centre for Development Research, Gammel Kongevej 5, 1610 Copenhagen V, Denmark.

Abstract

Van Donge's comment on my reassessment of agrarian change on the Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania, raises a number of issues that go beyond the specificities of the location under scrutiny. Before dealing with these, however, let me restate my argument, which van Donge has reconstructed only selectively. In my article (Ponte 2001a), I argued that rural households are not ‘trapped in decline’ on the Uluguru Mountains, as depicted in previous literature. Although agriculture is not going through an easy transition in the area, and some options are becoming more limited, others are being more skilfully utilised. On the Uluguru Mountains, land scarcity is the main feature of agriculture; deforestation and soil erosion are major problems; and inputs have become increasingly expensive. Under these circumstances, the main ways households can improve their quality of life – short of leaving the area altogether, and in addition to relying on remittances from outside – are to expand land cultivated in other locations, to experiment with alternative farming systems, and to increase non-farm incomes. I observed that Uluguru households were doing all of these in the mid-1990s, and that their income levels and housing characteristics had improved. This was intriguing and challenging to me, since farmers' adaptations to changing markets had not led to higher incomes in other areas that I had researched in Tanzania. Finally, I suggested that economic diversification can play an important role in improving rural livelihoods, but that this process is more likely to take place in locations with well-established economic ties and relatively good access to major markets.

Van Donge has a variety of problems with my argument. These can be grouped around three main themes: (1) issues of methodology; (2) a perceived misunderstanding of his argument; and (3) the impact of liberalisation. Due to space limitations, in my reply to van Donge I deal with these larger themes. A more detailed response covering specific evidence and technicalities is available from this author and has been sent to van Donge.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2002 Cambridge University Press

Access options

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