Transcript The Agrarian Extension Service in Francoist Spain (1955

Modernizing the Countryside:
The Agrarian Extension Service in Francoist Spain (1955 1975)
Alba Díaz Geada & Daniel Lanero Táboas
HISTAGRA Research Group
University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain)
Objectives


Our aim is to present the main characteristics
of agrarian extensionism in Spain, -its origins,
objectives, methods and evolution- during the
last decades (1955 – 1975) of the francoist
dictatorship.
We are going to focus our attention on the
important role of Rural Sociology in the
theory behind the AES, in the training process
of the extension agents, and in how they interact
with rural communities.
Some background. Franco's
dictatorship (1936-1975)





The 1940s: autarchy as a goal
The 1950s: a new period for agriculture
The end of the autarchy ideal and the beginning of an economic
recovery process based on price liberalization and structural
transformation with one objective in mind: to increase
agricultural productivity through technical improvements.
Main lines of action: land consolidation, reforestation and
colonization policies; introduction of large-scale machinery and
chemical fertilization. Protagonism of agrarian experts:
agronomy engineers took centre stage.
The relationship with farmers: Agrarian experts came back into
touch with farmers, but…the experts perceived the farmers as
being incapable of recognizing their own interests, and thus
paid no attention to counterproposals or misgivings based on
economic or reproductive rationale.
The Agrarian Extension
Service (AES)



The Agrarian Extension Service (AES) was
created in 1955 in areas of land consolidation in
order to teach farmers how to achieve a more
modern agriculture.
The sociology of the AES: the AES was composed
mainly of mid-level technical experts, that
facilitated a less hierarchical and distant
relationship between the technicians and the
farmers.
The AES was influenced by the Green Revolution
and the North American cooperative Extension
model (assessments of Economic Missions,
research stays of Spanish experts in the USA).
The theoretical framework

Initially, the model consisted of Transferring Technology for productivity
purposes (the modernization of farming developments and increased
market orientation). During the 1960s the model became more complex,
incorporating more social elements.

Rural sociology provided the theoretical and methodological resources
to allow this modernization to develop in a manner that adapted better to
the particularities of each rural community.

With the creation (1966) of the Community Development Agency, headed
by Salvador Chico (influenced by the ideas of Paulo Freire), sociologists
joined the work of the AES agencies.

Personal qualities (social skills) were given just as much importance as
technical knowledge on extension in the training of agents: the ability to
identify the problems of rural families and communities and attempt to
resolve them, counting on farmers' contributions. The development had to
be achieved with the farmers.
The theoretical framework


The work focus of the AES in the 1960s was known as
the ‘four arms’ of the Extension service: a) agricultural
services, b) youth, c) family and home services, d)
cooperativism and community development.
The priority of the first branch was to incorporate new
farming technology and management training
through offering seminars on specific topics. Youth work
was built for training and carrying out cooperative
projects. To reach rural women, the AES began a new
section comprising female personnel, who were Home
Economists. Community work involved
neighbourhood projects such as constructing footpaths
etc… to encourage and demonstrate cooperation.
The ‘four arms’ in action…
The relationship with farmers


In the 60s a different dynamic developed between
the experts and the farmers: the two groups
advanced towards each other in a new model,
where the experts came to see themselves as
permanent consultants to the farmers. In contrast
to the prior period, the aim was to make the
agrarian expert available to the farmer.
However, the relationship was still understood as
one where the former guided the latter. From a
functional perspective of social change, the AES
sought to be a ‘civilizing agent’. The birth of new
peasants with new values had been entrusted to
technological transfer.
CONCLUSIONS


During the development of the AES between 1955 - 75, an
evolution took place within the paradigm of the Transfer of
Technology, moving towards a model with greater social
sensibility. However, Sociology also served the goal of
modernizing. Sharing the background of the modernizing theory,
Sociology provided the resources to identify and understand the
rural logic, whilst maintaining the ultimate goal of transformation.
The experience of working with the community and the dayto-day contact with its people, drove changes from the top that
reflected a better understanding of the local reality. All of this
made the AES different (better accepted) from other institutions
actively present in Franco's rural Spain (compulsory agricultural
associations, councils…).
CONCLUSIONS



Despite the participative and dynamic character of the AES's
methods, we should not lose sight of the context. In Spain, the
Green Revolution industrial-agrarian development model
was imposed by coercion.
Though the objectives were clear, the results were less than
clear: was it technical or social improvement that they were
actually achieving?
This was the inner dilemma of many former AES agents, who
wondered if their work had actually contributed to improving
peasant quality of life or if they had served more as transmitters
in the process of shifting the agrarian population to the industrial
sector.

All the photographs in this presentation from: GÓMEZ BENITO, C.
(2006), Imágenes de un mundo rural: 1955 – 1980, Madrid, MAPA.
BIBLIOGRAPHY




DÍAZ GEADA, A; LANERO TÁBOAS, D.; FERNÁNDEZ PRIETO, L.; CABANA IGLESIA,
A.(2012),”Agricultural Extension Programmes in Postwar Europe: A Comparative Study of Two
Extreme Cases: Spain and the Netherlands (1946 - 1973)”, in IX ESSHC, Glasgow, April, 11 –
14th 2012.
FERNÁNDEZ PRIETO, L. (2007),El apagón tecnológico del franquismo. Estado e innovación en
la agricultura española del siglo XX, Valencia, Tirant lo Blanch – Ministerio de Cultura.
FERNÁNDEZ PRIETO, L. (2009), “A extensión Agraria como instrumento da revolución verde en
España”, in LÓPEZ DÍAZ, M. (ed.), Historia y Cultura. Estudios de Homenaje al profesor J.M.
Pérez García, Vigo, Universidade de Vigo, pp. 151-170.
GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ, G.L.; GARCÍA GUTIÉRREZ, J.; RODRÍGUEZ TRONCOSO, A. (2009), El
Servicio de Extensión Agraria. Vivencias, recuerdos y vigencia, Madrid, Centro de Publicaciones
.





del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, Madrid, 2009
GÓMEZ BENITO, C. (1996), Políticos, burócratas y expertos: un estudio de la política agraria y la
sociología rural en España (1936-1959), Madrid, Siglo XXI de España.
GÓMEZ BENITO, C. (2006), Imágenes de un mundo rural: 1955 – 1980, Madrid, MAPA.
GÓMEZ BENITO, C.; LUQUE PULGAR, E., “Modernización agraria, modernización administrativa
y franquismo. El modelo educativo y administrativo del Servicio de Extensión Agraria (19551986)”, Areas, 26, 2007.
SÁNCHEZ DE PUERTA T, F., (1996),Extensión agraria y desarrollo rural, Madrid, MAPA.
SÁNCHEZ DE PUERTA, F., (1997), “Estado y agricultura: La extensión agraria” en GÓMEZ
BENITO, C.; GONZÁLEZ RODRÍGUEZ, J.J., (coords.): Agricultura y Sociedad en la España
contemporánea, Madrid, CIS, pp. 913 – 947.