Women who have worked in the fields are more valuable than women who have worked as housemaids. Brendan Koerner reports on a study of bride prices in Tanzania which shows that “child labor in agricultural activities is significantly associated with better outcomes in terms of family wealth”. Koerner goes on to ask whether “if bride prices were abolished, would families be less inclined to put their daughters to work in the fields? That would seem to be a long-term good for a nation looking to decrease its reliance on farming.”
My question: why would Tanzania want to decrease its reliance on farming? Wouldn’t it actually like to improve its farming?
Answers on a postcard (whatever that is) please.
It is an article of faith among many development thinkers that the path to development runs away from the land to the cities where there are better educational opportunities and higher value jobs as well as cultural evolution that favors traditionally disenfranchised segments of the population such as women.
To do this farming must be automated to substitute mechanical energy for human energy, which also correlates with higher yields for a given amount of land and water.
This view is not universal. There are concerns about the true sources and consequences of the increased non-human energy, and even doubts about the long term benefits of urbanization. And other things. Etc.
Improved farming is in the eye of the beholder to some extent, depending on how “improved” is defined.