Malawi strives to develop into a productive nation by increasing agricultural production. The Malawi Growth and Development Strategy III aims to transform the agricultural landscape in Malawi away from subsistence smallholders towards farming as a business. New concepts and business models can conflict with more traditional social systems in a community. So, how do smallholder farmers navigate between these more modern market pressures and the social pressures of their communities?
During our research seminar on March 19, 2019, Rob Lubberink, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, presented preliminary results of the Organizational structures for SMallholder REsilience (OSMARE) project in Malawi drawing on the qualitative analysis of two milk bulking groups (MBGs) in Central Region Malawi.
The OSMARE project, implemented in Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe aims to define how the organizational structures of thirteen selected business models stimulate smallholder resilience to market, social and environmental shocks through Climate-Smart Agriculture related incentives.
The research was based on the concepts of Practice Theory, and used related qualitative tools, such as various forms of interviews, focus group discussions, go-along interviews and participant observation. Overall, the study collected 25+ hours of audio and video recordings, more than 1,300 photos, field notes, and drew causal loop maps for 10 zones and MBGs.
Lubberink presented two case studies from the dairy industry in Central Malawi to illustrate (1) how dairy farmers in Magomera navigate social and market pressures; and, (2) the individual and collective responses to adversity of dairy farmers in Mchinji.
The Spiritualism Case: Navigating social and market pressures
The first case study analysed how farmers navigate the multitude of sometimes conflicting demands of the MBG, community, and practices of witchcraft/spiritualism. Farmers have to integrate expectations of farming as a business with the powerful socio-cultural environment of their communities. Lubberink explained that spiritualism, traditional remedies and rational approaches define what farmers do. The collectivist social system has spiritualism as a governance system that enforces the sharing of resources and allows punishment if someone does not redistribute resources. Furthermore, dairy farmers feel compelled to seek traditional remedies to protect their cows against witchcraft. This is complemented by other approaches, such as building fences or having guard dogs.
The study also found that Christianity, “Keeping quiet”, showing humility and trainings define how farmers talk about business and social pressures. “Keeping quiet” relates to avoiding dispute by putting oneself in a lower position. Dairy farmers also stated that they are careful not to show off about their wealth, out of fear becoming the target of witchcraft. Furthermore, the research team noted that participants in interviews did not speak about witchcraft related issues in front of other village inhabitants. Dairy farmers stated that while they are Christians and go to church, many still seek protection for their cows against witchcraft. The findings show a persistent contradiction created by the interplay between social and market pressures. Dairy farmers are still likely to use both technical knowledge and witchcraft. A sick cow might be treated with medicine, but at the same time the farmer will seek protection for the cow from a traditional healer.
Lubberink concluded that while market pressures stimulate accumulation and investment, social pressures constrain these by stimulating sharing and redistributing resources. Witchcraft is a dominant mechanism that governs the latter. Hence, farmers are navigating between Scylla (market pressures) and Charybdis (social pressures).
The Adversity Case: Individual and collective responses to adversity
The second case study analysed the progress of another milk bulking group in the Central Region, which was supported by Heifer International until 2015. The phase out of support from Heifer International led to declining resources; then their generator broke down and the resulting lack of cooling turned milk sour. The lack of resources resulted in fewer farm visits, which dairy farmers subsequently associated with a lack of care by the MBG Committee. This resulted in increasing distrust in the capacity of the MBG, and the rise of kudelela (farmers who challenge the position of the committee.) Despite purchasing a new generator, the group could not sell milk due to an accident of the milk truck in the rainy season, which caused a 3-months market crisis. In response, the MBG allowed members to start vending (i.e. to sell their milk to individual costumers). The vending continues even since there is a new milk buyer, the temporary solution became a challenge in itself. This vending decreased the available supply of milk for the MBG and made it difficult for the group to earn a collective income. But instead of sanctioning side vending, the collective looked for alternative opportunities to create income such as poultry farm, maize mill, bakery or butchery.
Lubberink pointed out that an individual entrepreneurial response, such as side vending can conflict with a collective response, such as finding a new buyer for bulk quantities. Hence, individual entrepreneurial response to adversity can become a challenge. Entrepreneurship as a research lens can help to understand how both individual members and collectives respond to adversity, which is necessary to understand the resilience of (dairy) farming in dynamic contexts.
The presentation concluded with pointing out that it is important to consider both market forces and social context when novel structures (like MBG) are introduced.
The seminar presentation is available below.
