Human Ecology

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 635–646

Brief Communication: Does Integration to the Market Threaten Agricultural Diversity? Panel and Cross-Sectional Data From a Horticultural-Foraging Society in the Bolivian Amazon

  • Vincent Vadez
  • Victoria Reyes-García
  • Ricardo A. Godoy
  • V. Lilian Apaza
  • Elizabeth Byron
  • Tomás Huanca
  • William R. Leonard
  • Eddy Pérez
  • David Wilkie
Article

Abstract

Trade theory predicts that the expansion of markets induces households to specialize and intensify production. We use plot-level data (n = 64) from a panel study of 2 village and cross-sectional data from 511 households in 59 villages of Tsimane’ Amerindians (Bolivia) to test the predictions. Results of bivariate analyses using both data sets suggest that as households integrate into the market economy they: (1) deforest more, (2) expand the area under rice cultivation, the principal cash crop, (3) sell more rice, and (4) intensify production by replanting more and by replanting newly cleared plots with maize, another cash crop. Results mesh with predictions about production specialization and intensification of trade theory. The analysis also produced results running counter to predictions from trade theory. For example, households and villages more integrated into the market planted more cassava and rice varieties, intercropped more, and put more crops in new fields than more autarkic households. Although the expansion of markets induces specialization and intensification in selected cash crops, it does not erase completely agricultural diversity. We hypothesize that despite the expansion of markets, households retain agricultural diversity because the market does not yet provide modern forms of self-insurance or well-functioning labor, credit, and product markets that would allow households to protect food consumption when faced with shocks. Without better insurance mechanisms, some agricultural diversity might still allow households to smooth consumption.

slash-and-burn markets rice cash crops Tsimane’ Bolivia deforestation agricultural intensification Amerindians 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bentley, J. (1987). Economic and ecological approaches to land fragmentation: In defense of a much-maligned phenomenon. Annual Review of Anthropology 16, 32–63.Google Scholar
  2. Berhens, C. (1992). Labor specialization and the formation of markets for food in a Shipibo subsistence economy. Human Ecology 20(4), 435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brush, S., Taylor, J. E., and Bellon, M. R. (1992). Technological adoption and biological diversity in Andean potato agriculture. Journal of Development Economics 39(2), 365–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coomes, O. T., and Burt, G. J. (1997). Indigenous market-oriented agroforestry: Dissecting local diversity in western Amazonia. Agroforestry Systems 37(1), 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daillant, I. (1994). Sens dessus-dissous. Organisation sociale et spatiale des Chimanes d’Amazonie bolivienne, PhD Dissertation, Laboratoire d’Ethnologie et de Sociologie Comparative, Universite de Paris.Google Scholar
  6. Demmer, J., and Overman, H. (1999). Indigenous People Conserving the Rain Forest? The Effect of Wealth and Markets on the Economic Behaviour of Tawahka Amerindians in Honduras, Tropenbos International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. Godoy, R. (2001). Indians, Markets, and Rain Forests. Theory, Methods, Analysis, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Godoy, R., Overman, H., Demmer, J., Apaza, L., Byron, E., Huanca, T., Leonard, W., Pérez, E., Reyes-García, V., Vadez, V., Wilkie, D., Cubas, A., McSweeney, K., and Brokaw, N. (2002). Local financial benefits of rain forests: Comparative evidence from Amerindian societies in Bolivia and Honduras. Ecological Economics 40, 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hammond, D. S., Dolman, P. M., and Watkinson, A. R. (1995). Modern Ticuna swidden-fallow management in the Colombian Amazon: Ecologically integrating market strategies and subsistence-driven economies. Human Ecology 23(3), 335–356.Google Scholar
  10. Huanca, T. (1999). Tsimane’ Indigenous Knowledge. Swidden Fallow Management and conservation, PhD Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar
  11. Levasseur, V., and Olivier, A. (2000). The farming system and traditional agroforestry systems in the Maya community of San Jose, Belize. Agroforestry Systems 49, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Long, C. L., and Zhou, Y. (2001). Indigenous community forest management of Jinuo people’s swidden agroecosystems in southwest China. Biodiversity and Conservation 10, 753–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Patrinos, H. A., and Psacharopoulos, G. (1994). Indigenous people and poverty in Latin America. Finance & Development 23, 41–43.Google Scholar
  14. Piland, R. (1991). Traditional Chimane Agriculture and Its Relationship to Soils of the Beni Biosphere Reserve, Bolivia, Master’s Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar
  15. Pimentel, D., and Heichel, G. H. (1991). Energy efficiency and sustainability of farming systems. In Lal, R., and Pierce, J. F. (eds.), Soil Management for Sustainability. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa, pp. 113–123.Google Scholar
  16. Posey, D. A., and Balee, W. (eds.) (1989). Resource management in Amazonia: Indigenous and folk strategies. Advances in Economic Botany, Vol. 7. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Reyes-García, V. (2001). Indigenous People, Ethnobotanical Knowledge, and Market Economy. A case Study of the Tsimane’ Amerindians in Lowland Bolivia, PhD Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar
  18. Sierra, R., Rodriguez, F., and Losos, E. (1999). Forest resource use change during early market integration in tropical rain forests: The Huaorani of upper Amazonia. Ecological Economics 30, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Simmons, C. (1997). Forest management practices of the Bayano region of Panama: Cultural variations. World Development 25(6), 989–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent Vadez
    • 1
  • Victoria Reyes-García
    • 2
  • Ricardo A. Godoy
    • 1
  • V. Lilian Apaza
    • 3
  • Elizabeth Byron
    • 4
  • Tomás Huanca
    • 5
  • William R. Leonard
    • 6
  • Eddy Pérez
    • 3
  • David Wilkie
    • 7
  1. 1.Sustainable International Development Program, Heller School for Social Policy and ManagementBrandeis UniversityWaltham
  2. 2.Tropical Conservation and Development CenterUniversity of FloridaGainesville
  3. 3.Universidad Mayor de San AndrésLa Paz
  4. 4.Anthropology DepartmentUniversity of FloridaGainesville
  5. 5.Correo CentralSan Borja
  6. 6.Anthropology DepartmentNorthwestern UniversityEvanston
  7. 7.Wildlife Conservation SocietyWaltham

Personalised recommendations