4.6 Article

Evaluation of the 2009 reform of the cotton sector in Benin: perspectives from the field

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14735903.2014.909643

Keywords

cooperatives; natural experiment; policy arrangements; coalitions; resources; discourses; institutions

Funding

  1. Netherlands' Directorate-General for International Cooperation of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affair (DGIS/BUZA) through Convergence of Sciences-Strengthening Innovation Systems (CoS-SIS programme)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The immediate consequences of the 2009 reform of the cotton sector in Benin are assessed from the farmers' perspective. Using a policy arrangements approach, we analyse how farmers experienced the transformations brought about by the reform and how it influenced their day-to-day activities. The new farmer cooperatives established after the reform were trusted by farmers. Many farmers returned to the sector, increasing cotton output. Nevertheless, productivity remained low, around 900kg/ha, probably because the reform addressed mainly institutional constraints. Technical constraints relating to varietal choice, soil fertility improvement, and pest management were neglected. The policy arrangements emerging from the reform still generate discussion, in particular about the way actors and coalitions are organized. The top-down approach of the reform process has limitations for problem-solving, especially where actors' interests collide. The adjustments made under the reform with regard to farmer-based organizations and actors from public services, the caution solidaire, and farmers' supervision proved inappropriate for solving the institutional problems posed at the nodes of actors and coalitions, resources, discourses, and institutions, thereby further undermining the cotton sector. A mix of technological and institutional reforms might offer a more effective option for the future.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available